list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation (listing) and highlights the team space distinction, but does not mention behavior such as pagination limits, recursion depth, or error handling. The lack of annotation makes the transparency adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that convey the core purpose and a key parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition. 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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers the essential usage (directory path, team flag). However, it lacks information about return format, pagination behavior, or how to interpret results. Still, it is reasonably complete for a listing tool.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides (only mentions 'path' and 'team' implicitly). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists files and subfolders in a specified directory on zspace NAS, with a specific note about the 'team' parameter to switch to team space. This is a concrete verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_files' or 'list_recent_files'.

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 listing directory contents and mentions the team parameter, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search_files' or 'list_recent_files'. No explicit context for exclusion or when-not-to-use is provided.

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