preview_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It suggests a read-only preview but does not confirm that the operation is non-destructive, require permissions, or handle large directories. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient, but it omits important details that could be included without much bloat. Still, it is front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (unknown content) and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'summarizes' entails (e.g., file count, sizes), how `ignore` works, or edge cases. For a preview tool, more context is needed.

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 0% for both parameters (`directory_path` and `ignore`). The description does not add any meaning or constraints beyond the schema, leaving the agent uninformed about parameter format, default behavior, or usage.

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 tool's function: previewing what would be indexed before a full scan. It uses a specific verb ('summarizes') and resource ('what would be indexed'), and effectively distinguishes it from siblings like `index_directory` which performs the actual scan.

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 implies usage before a full scan, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `index_directory` or `search_my_documents`. It lacks 'when not to use' or prerequisite information.

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