browse_do_files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it states that the tool returns a list of do files, which is core behavior. However, it does not disclose whether results include full paths, sort order, recursion into subdirectories, or any permission/error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded Korean sentence that conveys the action clearly with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify the return shape (e.g., filenames only, full paths) or other behavioral details. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers the only parameter ('directory') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only rephrases 'specified directory' and adds no extra meaning, examples, or constraints beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb '조회' (list/retrieve), names the resource 'do files', and scopes to a specified directory. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_do_file, write_do_file, and run_do_file.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_do_file or run_do_file, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the verb and resource.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.