cutbolt_files_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are sorted, include sizes and root-relative paths, and engine state folders are silently skipped — the last being a non-obvious filtering behavior an agent should know about.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope and then layering optional behaviors. Every clause carries information, though the semicolon-chained phrasing is slightly crammed and the trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming what is returned (paths, sizes, sort order) and the default root. Combined with full schema coverage and safety annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/truncation behavior for the limit parameter is left unstated.

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% with good per-parameter descriptions and an extension example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks, notably that input_root defaults to the workspace, which is not stated anywhere in the schema, plus confirmation of the recursive and extension-filter semantics.

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 and resource ('List files and folders'), names the scope ('under input_root (the workspace by default)'), and characterizes the output ('sorted, with sizes and paths relative to it'). No sibling tool covers file listing, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, and the agent can tell exactly what this returns.

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 implied rather than stated: it is clear this is the tool for enumerating workspace contents, and the recursive/extension options signal typical inspection scenarios. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to an alternative, and none of the siblings overlap, so no exclusion is strictly needed.

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