list_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the basic scope but does not disclose that the glob defaults to '**/*' (recursive listing), whether directories are included, how hidden files are handled, or any other operational traits. For a simple read-only tool the bar is lower, but these details are notably absent.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the action and scope with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for an AI agent scanning tool definitions.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description omits any explanation of the glob parameter and its recursive default, and there is no guidance on when this tool is the appropriate choice among siblings. For a low-complexity tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has one parameter, glob, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. The agent receives no explanation about pattern syntax, default behavior, or how glob affects the result set. The description adds zero value beyond the schema's bare parameter name and default.

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 a clear resource ('files and directories below the bounded workspace'), making the core function unmistakable. It is implicitly distinct from siblings like read_file and search_text, which operate on file content rather than directory structure, so no naming of another tool is necessary.

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 implied: this is the only sibling that lists workspace contents, so an agent can infer when to invoke it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over other tools or any exclusions, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name and context.

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