list_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation on the agent's filesystem and handles both directories and files. However, it does not mention if it is destructive, requires special permissions, or the behavior for invalid paths. The safety profile is unclear but assumed safe.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The usage section is structured with arguments and example. Every sentence adds value, though the usage format partially repeats schema info. It earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 output schema exists (presumably documenting return values), the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it fails to explain the required 'agent_id' parameter, which is essential for invoking the tool. This omission reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes the 'path' parameter with type, default, and usage, but completely omits the required 'agent_id' parameter. This leaves a critical gap for the agent to understand how to specify the target agent.

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 lists directory contents or file details on the agent. It differentiates from siblings like 'change_directory' and 'list_disks' by specifying 'contents' and 'on the agent'. However, it could be more explicit about the format of output (e.g., just names or additional 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 provides a usage example and syntax but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_disks' for drives, 'read_file' for file content). No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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