list_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior: entries include type and size, directories sort first, and offset/limit pagination is supported. However, it does not mention return format details, hidden-file handling, symlink behavior, or potential errors, leaving notable gaps.

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 two sentences and every clause earns its place: it states the operation, output fields, sort order, and pagination support. No filler or 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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core listing behavior and pagination, but does not clarify the role of the 'distro' parameter or the structure of the returned entries. Given the WSL context and sibling tools like list_distros, this is a significant omission for a fully self-contained description.

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 only 50% (limit and offset have descriptions; path and distro do not). The description mentions offset/limit pagination, reinforcing the schema for those parameters, but it adds nothing about path semantics or how distro is selected, so the low-coverage parameters remain under-explained.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('entries in a WSL directory') and specifies additional output details (type and size). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like read_file and get_file_info, which focus on file content or single-file metadata.

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 directory entries and mentions pagination for large directories. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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