list_files

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious context: folder paths are relative, hidden files are excluded, paths outside the configured folder are excluded, and results contain file: IDs for downstream fetch. This is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure beyond the 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the secondary details about relative paths, exclusions, and file IDs are compact and meaningful.

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?

The description communicates the core browsing behavior and folder constraints, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it leaves limit, offset, and recursive semantics undocumented, and it lacks explicit guidance for choosing between list_files and the search/fetch siblings. These are meaningful completeness gaps for an agent calling the 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the folder parameter ('folder is relative'), while limit, offset, and recursive receive no explanation. For a tool with four parameters but zero schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Browse the local literature folder.' It clarifies folder scope, notes that results contain file: IDs for fetch, and excludes hidden files and paths outside the configured folder. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like search and fetch.

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 when to use it: when browsing the local literature folder, and it tells agents that file IDs in results are intended for fetch. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search or other siblings, nor state when not to use list_files.

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