list_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is read-only and explains key behaviors: plain-text output, sorting order, and truncation of large directories instead of refusal. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: output format, ordering, truncation behavior, and read-only safety. There is no wasted wording.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main operational behaviors: sorting, truncation, and non-destructiveness. It does not address error cases or path edge cases, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values.

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 needed to compensate by explaining the path parameter's expected format or semantics. It does not mention how paths should be specified, whether relative/absolute paths are accepted, or how the default '.' behaves. The single parameter is somewhat self-evident from its name, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 the tool's action and resource: listing the contents of a directory. It adds meaningful detail—directories first, then files, alphabetically—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file, find_files, and search_files.

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 usage is implied: use this when you want a plain listing of a directory's contents. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as when needing recursive file discovery via find_files or empty-directory detection via list_empty_dirs.

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