list_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: shows one directory level, includes last commit metadata, and defaults to root when filepath is omitted. This is valuable context beyond the basic function, though it doesn't mention error handling or sorting, which are minor for a list tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by usage scope and alternative. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 listing tool with fully documented parameters, this description is sufficient. It explains the tool's scope, default behavior, and output metadata, providing a complete picture. The absence of an output schema is compensated by mentioning 'last commit metadata' as part of the output.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value to the 'filepath' parameter by explaining the default behavior and the one-level restriction, which is not fully captured by the schema's 'Directory path (empty for root)'. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 directories at a specific path in a repository with last commit metadata.' It names a specific resource (files and directories) and action (list), and further distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_files_recursive by explicitly stating it shows only one directory level.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Defaults to root directory if filepath is omitted' and 'Shows one directory level only — use list_files_recursive for a full tree view.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and directs to the alternative for a more comprehensive listing.

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