List a directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavioral prerequisite: the plugin file-system permission, the one-time user prompt, and the role of bb_request_fs. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, default limit behavior, output shape, and error handling.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action is first, followed by the permission prerequisite and the supported options.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is only partially complete. It addresses the permission requirement and two optional features, but does not explain the limit parameter, return value structure, or edge-case behavior.

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 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It covers 'recursive' and 'filter' (as a glob filter) but leaves 'path' and especially 'limit' without additional semantic detail beyond their names.

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+resource ('List the entries of a directory') and adds two capability hints (recursion and glob filter). It is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as bb_glob or bb_file_info.

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 usage by mentioning the file-system permission requirement and that bb_request_fs can trigger the prompt. It does not say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like bb_glob or bb_file_info, nor does it state when not to use it.

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