list_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Safely lists allowed ...' hints at a read-only, permission-filtered operation, but it never explains what 'allowed' means (auth/access scope), whether the listing is recursive or one-level, whether it paginates, or what the response contains.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The only mildly wasteful word is the vague 'Safely', which asserts a property without explaining it.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves meaningful gaps: the meaning of 'allowed', the depth/scope of the listing, and the returned structure are all unstated.

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Subpath relative to workspace root (e.g. '' or 'Comercial')'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no additional meaning about subpath syntax or default behavior, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pairs a specific verb ('lists') with a specific resource ('allowed subdirectories and document files in the workspace'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings search_docs and read_snippet, but the listing-versus-searching distinction is reasonably inferable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_docs or read_snippet, nor any prerequisite or exclusion statements. The intended usage (browse the workspace hierarchy) is only implied by the description wording.

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