list_log_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the extension filter and that size/mtime are included. However, it doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, or how missing/unreadable directories are handled, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 core behavior and extension scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with parameters following in a compact Args block. Because schema coverage is 0%, the Args list earns its place rather than being pure duplication, and there is little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and both parameters plus the purpose are documented. Minor gaps remain around error/empty-directory behavior and sorting, but nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: dir_path is explained as the absolute path of the log directory, and recursive is explained as whether to scan subdirectories with its default (True). Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

Clear specific verb (list) and resource (log files in a directory), and it even narrows scope to specific extensions (.log/.txt/.out/.err/.trace) and returned metadata (size, mtime). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like read_log_tail/search_log_keyword, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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: an agent can infer this is the enumeration step before reading or analyzing logs. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no condition selecting it over alternatives, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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