Remote List

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It never states that this is a non-destructive read, whether the path must exist, how errors or missing directories are reported, or whether results are paginated or recursive.

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 lean sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, even though the content is under-specified.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description needs to do considerably more work than one sentence. An agent lacks the return shape, the meaning of both parameters, and the relationship to the 'registered remote project' prerequisite.

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 not. It never explains what project_id refers to or how a project is registered, nor does it clarify that relative_path defaults to '.' and is resolved against the project root.

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 pairs a specific verb (List) with a specific resource (a directory) and scopes it to a registered remote project, so the operation itself is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like remote_stat, remote_search, or remote_read, which an agent must choose between.

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 guidance on when to use remote_list versus remote_stat, remote_search, or remote_read, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., a project must already be registered via project_ensure). The agent is left to infer the usage context entirely from the name.

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