Listar diretório

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key constraint (only allowed roots), but does not mention what happens when a path outside the allowed roots is provided, whether the listing is recursive, or what output format is returned. For a read-only listing operation, the absence of safety annotations makes this somewhat thin, though the verb 'listing' implies no mutation.

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 sentence that is directly front-loaded with the action and resource. There is zero filler or redundancy, which makes it concise. However, it is so brief that it arguably under-specifies for a tool with no annotations or parameter documentation.

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 operation, the description covers the core purpose and the critical allowed-roots constraint. Yet it omits any mention of return format, recursion behavior, hidden files, or error handling, which the agent would need to know since there is no output schema. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 input schema has only one parameter, dirPath, but schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not specify what dirPath should look like (absolute vs relative, trailing slash, path format). The parameter name 'dirPath' is self-explanatory, and the description implies it is a directory path, but it does not compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'Lista' (lists) and the resource 'arquivos e pastas' (files and folders), and adds the scope of allowed roots via FIVEM_MCP_ALLOWED_DIRS. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fs.read_text or fs.write_text, which handle file content, not directory listings. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions that listing is restricted to roots allowed by FIVEM_MCP_ALLOWED_DIRS, which gives some context about where it can be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it's adequate but not exemplary.

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