files/list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key trait that symlinks are shown but never followed, and it details what the listing includes. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, permissions, or error behavior. This is a moderate gap for a listing tool, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 and then adds a precise behavioral caveat. There is no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description hints at the return content by listing the fields shown (type, permissions, size, etc.), giving the agent a good idea of the output. It does not mention output format explicitly, but that is covered by the output_format parameter. Given the tool's simplicity and the rich parameter schema, this is largely complete, though it could note read-only nature for full transparency.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds marginal value by referencing ls -la, which implies the default long format, but it does not elaborate on any specific parameter beyond the schema. Per the calibration, a baseline of 3 is correct when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('a directory'), and enriches it with the ls -la analogy and specific details (file type, permissions, symlink targets). This makes its purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like files/read (content reading) and files/find (search).

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 gives clear context that this tool lists directory contents, which is enough for most cases. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is so straightforward that the lack of exclusions is acceptable. A 4 reflects the clear context without explicit alternative routing.

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