Get the structure of a directory.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are truncated at 500 entries, which is important behavioral context beyond annotations. It also mentions recursive vs. surface level, but does not detail the depth parameter's effect.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Each sentence adds value: first states action and options, second notes a critical limitation.

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 and existence of an output schema, the description covers the main use case and a limitation (truncation). It does not explicitly mention default behavior or the depth parameter, but the output schema supplements return value details. Overall adequate for a simple read-only tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'surface level or recursively' which maps to the boolean parameter, but does not explain the depth parameter (default 2) or the directory_path string. Partial semantic value, but insufficient for full coverage.

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 'read the structure inside a directory' which identifies the verb and resource. It specifies 'surface level or recursively', covering both modes. It is distinct from sibling tools which are all file editing/undo/diff operations.

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 the tool is for reading directory structure, which is clear given sibling tools are editing-oriented. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor provide prerequisites or exclusions. The context makes it clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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