List directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: recursion modes, inclusion of metadata, and the fact that each entry carries the latest commit that touched it. This helps the agent predict output richness without contradicting the safety hints.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds scoping and output details. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description gives enough context for selecting and invoking the tool. It names key return metadata but not the full response shape; however, the schema covers parameter usage sufficiently.

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 high (88%), so the schema already documents parameters like path, recursion, branch, and includeMetadata. The description only restates recursion behavior and metadata, adding little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files and folders under a directory path in a Git repository'), and adds precision with 'one level or full recursion' and metadata details. This clearly distinguishes it from work-item siblings and file-content tools.

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 when to use the tool — when you need to enumerate repository contents — but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_file_content or list_repositories. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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