List Directory

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

Description adds context beyond annotations by specifying it lists without reading contents. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which aligns. No contradictions. However, it does not disclose behavior like recursion limits or performance characteristics, but the annotations cover safety.

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 that is front-loaded with the key action. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 presence of output schema and annotations, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter behavior, error conditions, or example usage. For a tool with 4 parameters and a recursive option, more context about how to use them would improve 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% (description does not mention any parameters). With 4 parameters, the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not explain the role of 'projectPath', 'dir', 'recursive', or 'maxEntries'. This is a critical gap.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'files and directories inside a project directory', and distinguishes itself from file reading tools by adding 'without reading file contents'. This is specific and differentiates it from siblings like file.read.

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 listing without reading, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool vs alternatives like file.stat or code.read. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, relying on the agent to infer from sibling names.

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