Lists markdown protocol files in docs/ (CLIENT_*, SERVER_*, AUDIT_*) so LibGDX client-fixing agents can look up LangLa wire messages, ports, and packet field ordering.
Liệt kê file markdown protocol trong docs/ (CLIENT_*, SERVER_*, AUDIT_*).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only and side-effect free, whether it recurses into subdirectories, whether permissions limit the listing, or what the entries look like (names only vs. paths). 'List' implies a safe read, but that is inference rather than disclosure.
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 front-loaded sentence, with the scope qualifier (docs/ plus the three filename patterns) placed where it does the most routing work. No filler.
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?
No output schema exists, so the return shape arguably needs describing, yet the description never says what each listed entry contains (filename only, relative path, size). For a zero-parameter listing tool the essentials are covered, but the output contract is left unspecified.
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?
The schema has zero parameters, which hits the baseline of 4. The description correctly adds no parameter talk, and the glob patterns in the description usefully define the scope that a parameter might otherwise have carried.
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 (Liệt kê/list) plus a precise resource scope: markdown protocol files under docs/ matching CLIENT_*, SERVER_*, AUDIT_*. That is far more concrete than a bare 'list files'. It does not, however, explicitly name siblings like read_doc or search_docs, so discrimination is left to inference from the resource wording.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus read_doc or search_docs, and no prerequisites. A discovery-then-read workflow is only weakly implied by the file listing. Per the calibration example for a description with 'no when-to-use, no prerequisites', a 2 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.