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 behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether listing is recursive, whether hidden files are included, whether paths are absolute or relative, or any permission caveats — the default pattern hints at recursion but that lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. It is arguably too terse, but there is no structural waste to penalize.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and it is a simple one-parameter read tool. Still, for a no-annotation tool the description leaves unaddressed recursion scope, hidden-file handling, and path semantics, which are meaningful for a glob-based lister.

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 0% and the single parameter is named only 'Pattern', so the description's phrase 'glob pattern' is the only thing telling the agent the value is a glob rather than a literal filename. That is genuine added meaning, but there is no syntax example, escaping guidance, or note about the default.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('files in the workspace') plus the filtering mechanism ('glob pattern'). It is clearly distinct from read_file/write_file, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from openscad_info or render which also operate on the workspace.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name any alternative among the eight siblings. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the discovery step before read_file.

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