editor_list_filesystem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('List files and directories'), but does not mention scope (res:// vs user://), recursion behavior, pattern matching semantics, or whether it returns full or relative paths. This is a significant gap for a tool with no safety hints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words: 'List files and directories in the editor filesystem.' It is appropriately concise for a straightforward list operation, though it could add a few details without becoming verbose.

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 output schema, no annotations, and a sparse description, the tool context is incomplete. The description does not clarify what the list contains (files only, directories only, or both), the default path (res:// is in the schema but not mentioned), or the return format. This leaves meaning of the tool's output ambiguous.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for 'path' ('Directory path') and 'pattern' ('Glob pattern (e.g. "*.gd")'), covering 67% of parameters. The 'recursive' parameter lacks a description, and the tool description does not compensate for this gap. Since the schema handles most of the semantic load, a baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies a clear resource ('files and directories in the editor filesystem'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list specific resource types like list_scenes or list_scripts. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the editor filesystem scope is sufficiently specific to define its purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other list tools (e.g., list_project_files, list_paths, list_scenes). It lacks any context about typical use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this is the appropriate choice.

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