list_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses return format (one line per entry with type, size, modification time), sort order (directories first), and a real constraint (absolute paths accepted only when inside the root). It doesn't explicitly state read-only-ness, but listing semantics make that clear.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then usage, then path handling. Every sentence earns its place and none is redundant.

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?

Despite no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the return format, sorting, and path constraints, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by noting absolute paths are accepted only when they stay inside the root — a constraint not present in the schema's path property. This meaningfully enriches the single parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (immediate children of a directory) with precise scope ('immediate', not recursive), making it clearly distinct from siblings like search_files and read_file. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

'Use this to explore what is already stored before reading or saving' gives a clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly name search_files as the alternative for finding a specific file, but the exploration framing adequately distinguishes listing from searching/reading.

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