list_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It vaguely mentions 'optional filtering and recursion' but does not detail behaviors like hidden file handling, symlink follow behavior, or output format. The description fails to disclose these important execution details.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('List directory contents') and the key options ('optional filtering and recursion') without waste.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description does not explain what the returned listing looks like, error conditions, or parameter interactions (e.g., maxDepth only applies when recursive is true). The description is too brief to fully support agent invocation in complex scenarios.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 3. The description's phrase 'optional filtering and recursion' provides a high-level summary but does not add relationships or constraints beyond what the schema already documents. It adds minimal value over the structured parameter descriptions.

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 the action ('List') and the target ('directory contents'), with mention of optional filtering and recursion, making the tool's function immediately obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file and write_file, which handle file content operations.

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 alternatives such as find_files or search_in_files. It neither states use cases nor exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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