list_directory_contents

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

The description explicitly names the kinds of entries returned (files, folders, symlinks, submodules), which adds useful behavioral context beyond the tool name. However, there are no annotations, and the description omits details such as pagination, recursion behavior, or what happens when a path is invalid.

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 with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and precisely scopes what is listed, making every word valuable.

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 relatively simple directory-listing tool, the description plus complete parameter schema is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. It could additionally mention pagination or error behavior for invalid paths, but the core purpose and inputs are clear.

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 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents repo, owner, path, and ref. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('files, folders, symlinks and submodules within a directory'), and the GitHub repository context. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_repository_tree or get_file_contents.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_repository_tree or get_file_contents. The description implies it should be used for listing a directory, but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools.

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