list_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure ({ baseDirs, files, sources }), explains that sources lists non-file ingested items, and the scope parameter details behavior for relative/out-of-base prefixes. It does not explicitly state read-only intent or mention recursion depth/sorting, but for a list tool the essentials are covered. Edge cases for scope are thoroughly disclosed.

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 description is two sentences: first states the core function and return object, second clarifies what 'sources' contains. No filler, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. The parameter schema is detailed but that is separate. The main description earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description explains the return object and the meaning of sources. The scope parameter covers traversal/filtering behavior. It could additionally disclose recursion depth or permission requirements, but these are less critical for a read-only list operation. Overall, sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter 'scope', and its description is detailed (absolute path, prefix matching, union for arrays, behavior for relative/out-of-base). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema. Per guidelines, high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'List supported files (PDF, DOCX, TXT, MD) under the configured base directories and whether each is ingested.' This is a specific verb+resource combination with scope (supported extensions, base directories, ingestion status). It distinguishes from siblings: query_documents and status focus on querying, ingest_* on adding content, delete_file on removal. The tool is unambiguously the file-listing utility.

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?

The description implies usage: use this when you need to see files and their ingestion status, and it notes that sources include non-file ingest_data content (web pages, clipboard). The scope parameter description adds clear guidance about absolute path prefixes and how to interpret empty results (compare against baseDirs). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as query_documents or status, nor state when not to use it.

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