Codebase Files List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the scope (every file, module-relative paths), which is useful. However, it doesn't state whether the list is recursive, whether results are cached, pagination behavior, or what happens with invalid modules. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded purpose followed by the practical use case. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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?

Has an output schema, so return-value explanation is not required. But with 0% schema coverage on the module parameter and no annotations, the definition leaves key ambiguities (module identifier format, recursion depth) unresolved.

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% and the single 'module' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description doesn't clarify what format the module identifier takes (machine name, path, etc.), leaving a real ambiguity for the agent.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list every file in a module) with the output format (module-relative paths). It distinguishes itself from siblings like codebase_paths_list and codebase_module_list by being file-level within a module, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly states the use case: find the right path before calling codebase_file_read or codebase_function_read. This is clear upstream context, though it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name sibling alternatives like codebase_search or codebase_paths_list.

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