List remote files

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds some context about the scope ('configured domain root') and transport ('SFTP'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as recursiveness or return format.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

For a simple list tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not clarify whether listing is recursive, what metadata is returned, or how the path parameter behaves by default, though the schema covers the default. The lack of output schema means a small gap in expected return behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only reinforces the domain parameter concept without explaining the other parameters or their interactions.

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 ('List') and resource ('files') with the scoping context ('under a configured domain root over SFTP'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (reads a specific file), list_roots (lists roots), and list_servers (lists server profiles).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no explicit exclusion scenarios, and no mention of when not to use it. It simply states the function without additional usage context.

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