fs_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions two listing modes (non-recursive detailed and recursive limited depth), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, hidden file handling, or return format. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and immediately clarifies the two modes. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of filenames, full details). It does not cover error handling, depth configurability, or the mysterious 'id' parameter. Incomplete for an agent to properly use.

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?

Input schema has 3 parameters with only 33% coverage (only path has a description). The description mentions 'directory path' (path) and implies 'recursive' through 'recursive find', but does not explain the required 'id' parameter at all. Insufficient compensation for the schema gap.

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 in a directory and gives two concrete modes: ls -la (non-recursive with details) and recursive find with depth 3. It distinguishes itself from sibling fs_* tools that write, read, edit, or search file content.

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 implies usage when you need to list files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like fs_read or other list methods. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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