files_list_files

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — the operation is confined to a sandbox and paths must be relative — but says nothing about whether listing is recursive or single-level, whether hidden/empty entries are included, whether output is truncated, or how a bad path fails. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, that leaves significant behavior undisclosed.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scope constraint in parentheses — nothing is wasted. The terseness brushes against under-specification, but as a structural matter it is clean and easy to parse.

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 the description is not obligated to describe return values. However, for a filesystem listing tool the missing details that matter most — recursion depth, ordering, hidden files, and what happens on a nonexistent path — are not covered by the schema either, leaving the agent to discover them by trial.

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?

The single path parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the only semantic input is the schema's default of ".". The description compensates partially by stating "relative paths only", which tells the agent the accepted path form, but it does not explain what "." means, whether subdirectory paths are supported, or how trailing separators are handled.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and resource ("files/folders") plus the operational scope ("sandboxed workspace"), which lets an agent distinguish it from files_read_file, files_delete_file, and files_search_files. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from files_search_files, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool to reach for when it needs an inventory of the sandbox, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when files_search_files would be preferred, and no prerequisites or error conditions (e.g., nonexistent path).

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