goclaw_agent_files_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this explicitly. It doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure, pagination), error conditions, or any rate limits or permissions required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List context files') and includes helpful examples ('SOUL.md, IDENTITY.md, etc.'). There's zero waste—every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address key behavioral aspects like output format or safety. It provides enough to identify the tool's purpose but leaves the agent guessing about practical usage and results.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'agent_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, where to find agent IDs, or constraints). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('context files for an agent'), with specific examples of file types (SOUL.md, IDENTITY.md). It distinguishes this tool from other agent file operations like 'get', 'set', and 'delete' by focusing on listing rather than individual file manipulation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like goclaw_agent_list or goclaw_agent_links_list.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing agent), compare it to sibling tools (like goclaw_agent_files_get for retrieving specific files), or indicate scenarios where listing files is appropriate versus other operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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