create_dir

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating this is a mutation operation. The description adds useful context by specifying it creates files/folders in the workspace and mentions the return format. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like permission requirements, what happens if the path already exists, or workspace-specific constraints beyond what annotations provide.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting could be more streamlined without losing clarity.

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's moderate complexity (destructive operation with 1 parameter), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return format. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could better address behavioral aspects like error conditions or workspace boundaries.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the single parameter: 'path: Path to the folder to create.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify whether 'folder' includes files, path format requirements, or relative/absolute path handling, leaving some gaps.

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 purpose: 'Create a file or folder in the workspace.' This specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('file or folder'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'move_dir' or 'rename_file'. The 'Use instead of terminal' context is helpful but doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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 provides clear usage context with 'Use instead of terminal' and implies this is for workspace file/folder creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'exec_make_target' or 'predefined_commands', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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