list_uss_directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds that result capping is applied after filtering and sorting, which is useful, but says nothing about environment targeting behavior, error cases for non-existent paths, or whether entries are recursive (they presumably are not).

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, purpose front-loaded before the capability summary. Slightly thin rather than bloated, so not a 5 on the 'every sentence earns its place' scale but close.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what an entry looks like (name, type, size, modified time) or that results are non-recursive. Those gaps remain, though the rich annotations and fully documented schema cover most of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, with enum values documented inline (sort order semantics, type filter, maxResults). The description merely restates those capabilities, so baseline 3 is appropriate; it adds no format or default details beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("List the contents of a USS directory") and names the supported refinements, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_uss_files or read_uss_file, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 phrase "Supports type filter, sort order, and result capping" is a feature list rather than guidance on when to call this versus search_uss_files or read_uss_file. Usage is implied by the name (browse a directory) but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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