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 describes the tree output format and implies a read-only operation through 'before reading or editing files,' but it doesn't explicitly state safety characteristics or any limitations (e.g., performance or symlink behavior). It's adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with purpose, zero wasted words. It states what it does and when to use it, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the main behavior and usage context. It lacks a detailed output format explanation, but no output schema is required for a listing tool. The optional parameters are fully documented in the schema, so overall completeness is strong.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no param-specific details; it only mentions the tree output, which is not about parameters. The schema already fully explains depth and directory.

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 directories as a tree, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files and directories in the project'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file and search_files by focusing on structural overview.

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?

It explicitly says to use it to understand project structure before reading or editing files, providing clear usage context. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternatives, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient for this tool.

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