list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral constraints: paths are relative to the sandbox root, '.' targets the root, and absolute paths are rejected. This adds valuable context beyond the schema. It does not describe error behavior or output specifics, but the existence of an output schema mitigates that.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted list of three essential rules. Each rule earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary text is present.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the core functionality and key constraints. It does not mention error handling or hidden files, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining the 'relative_path' parameter: relative to sandbox root, '.' for root, and absolute paths not allowed. This add meaning beyond the raw schema definition, making the parameter's constraints and usage clear.

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 tool's function: 'List files and folders inside the allowed sandbox directory.' It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_root', though the mention of relative paths and the sandbox root provides some context.

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?

Usage is implied through the rules: paths must be relative, '.' lists the root, and absolute paths are disallowed. The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_root', and no exclusions or prerequisites are provided. This provides clear context but lacks direct comparative guidance.

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