List code files

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that vendor/build directories are skipped, depth controls expansion, and tool is sandboxed to codeLocation. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences covering purpose, skipped directories, and constraints. Front-loaded with the main action. Slightly more structure or formatting could improve readability, but it is efficient.

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?

Covers purpose, constraints, and sandboxing, but does not detail the return format (e.g., structure of file list, whether it's recursive, or error handling). Given no output schema, more detail would be helpful.

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?

Description adds context that subpath is optional and depth controls expansion, but the schema already describes these. The 'project' parameter lacks description in schema and the tool description does not clarify what constitutes a project ID or name, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states it lists files and folders under codeLocation with details like sizes and extensions. The verb 'list' and resource 'code files' are specific. Among many siblings, this tool is distinct for listing code files, contrasting with read_code_file or code_file_map.

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?

Description implies usage for browsing the codebase structure, but it does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or context for selecting this tool over similar ones.

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