ralph.list_files

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the key constraints upfront: results are limited to one level deep and paths are repo-relative. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but for a simple read-only list operation the essential behavior is 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?

Two short sentences deliver the core scope first, then the workflow context. Every phrase adds information and nothing is wasted.

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 description is sufficient for a single-optional-parameter list tool: it states the depth limit, path expectation, and follow-up action. It omits return shape, but the absence of an output schema is not harmful here because the listing behavior itself is the expected result.

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 documentation covers the single directory parameter 100%, including that it is repo-relative and defaults to repo root. The description reinforces the repo-relative aspect but adds no syntax, format, or example beyond the schema, so baseline 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 names a specific action and scope: listing files and directories one level deep under a repo-relative path. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling ralph.read_file, which reads file contents rather than listing 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?

It explicitly says to use this during Phase 2 exploration to discover source files, then follow up with ralph.read_file. This gives an agent both the context and the next action, with no competing list-like sibling to confuse.

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