List Directory

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds concrete behavioral traits: results are prefixed with [FILE] and [DIR], and it only works within allowed directories. This goes beyond the annotation to inform the agent about output format and scope. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: the first states the core function, the second explains output format, the third gives use case and constraint. Efficient and front-loaded, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 low complexity (1 param, output schema exists, annotations present), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, output format, constraint, and use case. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'specified path' but provides no additional detail on format, relative vs absolute, or constraints beyond 'allowed directories'. This is adequate but minimal—the agent would benefit from more specific parameter guidance.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get a detailed listing of all files and directories' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the [FILE] and [DIR] prefixes and calls itself 'essential for understanding directory structure', setting it apart from tools like directory_tree or search_files.

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?

Provides clear context by stating 'essential for understanding directory structure and finding specific files within a directory'. Also mentions constraint 'Only works within allowed directories'. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not guidance, missing a chance to differentiate from siblings like directory_tree or list_allowed_directories.

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