List one-level directory entries, restricting paths to the workspace root. This allows agents to inspect folder contents while preventing access outside the allowed area.
List directory entries (one level). Path confine to BRIDGE_WORK_ROOT per .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| workdir | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the listing is recursive, whether hidden files are included, whether it follows symlinks, what the output format is, or whether it has any side effects. 'List all files' is a bare statement with no behavioral detail.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Every word is generic and adds no value beyond the tool name. It earns a middle score because it is at least readable and not bloated, but it fails to use its brevity to convey useful 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?
For a tool with two undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot know what parameters to pass, what the output looks like, or how this tool behaves in edge cases. The description is not sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain what the two parameters are, what values they accept, or how they affect the listing. The phrase 'all files' is actually misleading if any parameters filter the result, and no parameter semantics are provided.
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 is a tautology: 'List all files in the current directory' merely restates the tool name 'list_files' without adding any specific verb, resource, or scope beyond what the name already implies. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like read_file, project_search, or memory_list, and provides no information about what kind of files, where, or in what format.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for the current working directory only, nor does it suggest when to use project_search or read_file instead. The only implied usage is 'when you need to list files,' which is minimal and not actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.