read_dir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one genuine behavioral trait — the operation is confined to configured roots. It says nothing about what happens on an out-of-scope path (error vs empty result), whether listing is recursive, or how hidden entries are treated.

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 with no filler, and the core action is stated first with the constraint second. It is efficiently sized, though it leans toward under-specification rather than maximum information density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read. Still, for a filesystem-facing operation with no annotations, the description omits recursion behavior and out-of-root error handling that an agent would want before calling.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as "Cartella da elencare", matching the description's wording. The description adds no extra semantics (relative vs absolute path, root-relative form), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Elenca il contenuto di una cartella" names a specific verb (list) and resource (folder contents), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. The siblings operate on different domains (roots, devices, deadlines, work orders), so no explicit differentiation is needed, though none is offered.

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?

"Funziona solo dentro i roots" implies a prerequisite (discover roots first, e.g. via list_roots) and warns of a scope limit, which is real usage guidance. It does not, however, say when to pick this over siblings or what to do when the path falls outside the roots.

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