Listar diretório

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states only that it lists files and folders within the workspace, omitting details about recursion, output format, hidden-file handling, or sorting. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool that would benefit from such context.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to stating the core action and its workspace scope.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional, well-documented parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and workspace constraint. Details like return format and recursion are absent, but they are minor for basic correct invocation.

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 single parameter 'path' is fully documented in the schema with a default value and a description ('Caminho relativo ao workspace'), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'workspace' context, meeting the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('arquivos e pastas de um diretório'), clearly identifying the tool as a directory lister. This naturally distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (file content) and get_file_info (metadata), even without naming alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The workspace-scoping hint provides context, but the description relies on the agent to infer that this tool is for enumerating directory entries versus alternatives like search_files or read_file.

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