Lists folder contents, showing subfolders and file sizes in bytes, to help inspect a workspace directory. Defaults to the current workspace when no path is specified.
Lists a folder: folders end in /, and files give their size in bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | The workspace by default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's main contribution is the return-shape convention (directory marker, byte sizes), which is genuinely useful given no output schema exists. It still omits behaviors that matter for a listing call, such as ordering, whether listing is recursive, and what happens for an invalid path.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the output convention. Nothing is extraneous and nothing is buried.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what comes back but leaves ordering, recursion depth, and error behavior unstated. Adequate to make a correct first call, thin for interpreting the response.
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 100%: the single path parameter is documented as defaulting to the workspace. The description adds no further meaning about path semantics (trailing slash handling, relative vs absolute, depth), so it only matches the baseline.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Lists a folder") and adds an observable result convention (folders suffixed with /, files with byte sizes). It stops short of distinguishing this from siblings like read or search, so an agent must infer that this one enumerates rather than fetches 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?
Usage is only implied: the '/'-suffix convention hints that this is the enumeration tool for discovering what exists in a folder. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over read or search, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the path must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.