create_directory

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

The description adds useful behavioral boundaries beyond the annotations: the directory is always created below the workspace root, and parent-directory creation only happens when recursive=true. This gives the agent a meaningful safety model for where the operation takes 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 short sentences deliver the core purpose, the scope constraint, and the key option. Every word earns its place without repetition or padding.

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?

For a two-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what is created, where it is created, and how to enable recursive creation; nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both path and recursive. The description reinforces the recursive behavior in prose, but it adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema definitions, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Create a directory') and a resource ('below the configured workspace root'), which distinguishes it from sibling file and git tools. Unlike names like 'process', it leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context: this creates a directory, and 'recursive=true' handles missing parents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling list makes the intended use apparent and no other sibling overlaps with this operation.

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