list_directory

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses the base directory and relative path, but lacks details on permissions, error behavior for invalid paths, whether hidden files are listed, or depth of listing. Basic behavior is clear but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Low complexity tool with one parameter. Output schema likely covers return format. The description provides the essential context (base path, relative paths) but could mention recursion or sorting behavior. Adequate for the simplicity.

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 has 0% description coverage for the path parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining path is relative to /app and defaults to '.', which compensates. However, it does not mention if subdirectory traversal or patterns are supported.

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 it lists files and subdirectories within the sandboxed directory /app. The verb 'list' and resource are explicit. The sibling tools include read_file and write_file, so this is distinct.

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 for exploring the sandboxed directory. It explains path relative to root and default. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like read_file for file contents.

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