list_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool operates within a secure folder, but omits details like recursion behavior, path scope, permissions, or output format.

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 a single sentence, achieving conciseness. However it slightly under-communicates by omitting parameter details; a bit more structure could enhance clarity without bloating length.

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 simplicity, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the path parameter, nor any limitations or side effects. The existence of an output schema partially offsets the need for return value explanation, but the description still lacks essential context.

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?

The only parameter 'path' is not described in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should have compensated but fails to explain what the path parameter controls (e.g., defaults to current directory).

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 files and folders in the secure working folder, using a specific verb ('listeler') and resource ('dosya ve klasörler'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_text_file or search_files_and_folders.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states the action without usage direction.

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