list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Não altera nada' (doesn't change anything), which is essential for an agent to know the operation is safe and non-destructive. This goes beyond what a simple list operation might imply and adds meaningful transparency.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, followed by a usage hint and a non-destructive guarantee, then a clean bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded for quick agent scanning.

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 low-complexity listing tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: what it does, when to use it, that it's non-destructive, and what each parameter means. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. There are no meaningful gaps.

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%, but the description provides clear semantics for all three parameters: directory is the workspace subdirectory (root by default), kind filters by type, and recursive includes subdirectories. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and makes the defaults unambiguous.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Lista os arquivos disponíveis no workspace' (lists available files in the workspace). It clearly identifies the tool as a discovery/listing operation and distinguishes it from the sibling processing, deletion, and job-management tools.

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 instruction 'Chame primeiro para descobrir com o que trabalhar' explicitly tells the agent to call this tool first to learn what files exist. This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tool list makes the differentiation obvious.

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