list_empty_dirs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the recursive emptiness condition and the top-down reporting order, which is valuable. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but the tool's non-destructive nature is clear from the verb 'list'.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a concise explanation of the recursive definition and its practical value. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 value documentation is not required. The description covers the core behavior and rationale. It omits edge cases like hidden files, symlinks, and permission errors, but for a 1-parameter list tool with an output schema, this is reasonably complete.

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 compensate. It indicates 'path' is the starting point ('beneath a path') but does not specify whether it must be a directory, absolute vs relative, or behavior for non-existent paths. The single parameter is simple enough that this is adequate but not rich.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find empty directories beneath a path.' It also precisely defines 'empty' recursively, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_directory or find_files. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 a cleanup use case ('which is what makes the result usable for cleanup') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like find_files or list_directory, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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