list_directory_privacy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the basic action ('List directories with password protection configured') without clarifying what 'password protection' means (e.g., .htaccess), whether the list is recursive, or what the return format is. There is no mention of permissions, side effects, or output details, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral insight.

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 concise sentence of seven words, front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple list tool, the description conveys the core purpose and the parameter is documented in the schema. However, it omits important contextual details: whether the listing is recursive, what constitutes 'password protection', and what the response looks like (no output schema). The tool is minimally viable but leaves gaps in scope and return format.

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% and the 'path' parameter has a description ('Directory to check'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing new about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't clarify how the path affects the listing (e.g., only that directory or its subdirectories), but the schema description is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 the specific verb 'List' and clearly specifies the resource: 'directories with password protection configured'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_directory_user' which manage users on protected directories. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 use case is implied: an agent would call this to see which directories have password protection set up. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'instead of' guidance, nor any mention of alternatives. The description is adequate for basic selection but lacks context about when this is preferred over related tools.

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