list_directory

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full behavioral burden. It discloses output elements (names, sizes, dates) but omits whether listing is flat or recursive, error handling (e.g., missing directory), or performance characteristics. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single, well-formed sentence conveying core functionality. Very concise, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from returns).

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?

Tool is simple but description does not mention default behavior when path is omitted (though required is false, implied root). No output schema, so return structure details are minimal. Adequate for basic use but leaves some ambiguity.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'path' parameter. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action 'List contents of a directory' and specifies the return values (names, sizes, modification dates). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_directory_tree (likely recursive) or disk_usage_summary (aggregated usage).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 21 siblings like compare_directories or find_largest, explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is missing.

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