list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes the recursive scanning behavior and output sorting, but doesn't mention potential limitations like permission requirements, error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens with empty directories. The description doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first specifies what the tool does, and the second describes the return format. There's zero wasted language and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what it does and returns. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or performance considerations, but covers the essential functionality well given the tool's simplicity.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the tool lists '.md files' and works 'recursively', which provides context beyond the schema's parameter documentation. However, it doesn't elaborate on the directory parameter format or constraints.

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 specific action ('List all .md files'), resource (files in a directory), scope (recursively), and output format (relative paths sorted alphabetically). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_docs' by focusing on listing rather than searching or extracting content.

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 implies usage for retrieving .md files from a directory structure, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_docs' or 'find_code_blocks'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios.

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