list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers very little: it does not say whether the listing is recursive, what happens if the directory is empty or missing, whether it requires the agent to be alive, or what permissions are needed. The only added behavior beyond the name is the set of three directory locations.

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 sentence with zero filler, and the scope of locations is front-loaded immediately after the verb. Nothing in it is redundant with the name or could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should explain the return shape (file names? paths? metadata?) and clarify the agent_id semantics. It leaves an agent unable to predict the response or confirm the required identifier's meaning.

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%, and the description partially compensates by enumerating the accepted values of the 'where' parameter (outbox, inbox, workdir) that the schema leaves as an unconstrained string with only a default. The required 'agent_id' parameter is left completely unexplained, so the compensation is incomplete.

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) plus the scope of directories (outbox, inbox, workdir), which lets an agent distinguish it from write-oriented siblings such as send_files and fetch_files. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 intent to enumerate an agent's files is implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no statement of when to prefer fetch_files (to retrieve contents) or get_transcript. An agent must infer the read-only browsing role from the verb alone.

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