List project directory

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that sensitive paths are hidden and that the operation is scoped to one directory inside a registered project. It does not mention error behavior or permissions, but the non-mutating nature is clear from the verb 'List.'

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 that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase adds value: the scope ('one directory'), the context ('inside a registered project'), and the filtering behavior ('hiding sensitive paths').

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 is simple and an output schema exists, so return value documentation is not needed. However, the description does not fully clarify path semantics or provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over find_files or read_file. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps for an agent deciding among siblings.

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 provides some semantic anchoring: 'registered project' maps to the project parameter and 'one directory' hints at the path parameter. However, it does not explain whether path is relative to the project root, what format project takes, or the meaning of the '.' default, leaving partial ambiguity.

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 and resource: 'List one directory inside a registered project.' The phrase 'while hiding sensitive paths' further defines scope. This makes it clear that the tool returns directory entries for a single directory and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_projects, find_files, and read_file.

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: it is for listing a single directory within a registered project, not for recursive search or reading file contents. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so the guidance is only implicit.

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