List Directory

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it only works within allowed directories and outputs results with distinguishing prefixes. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, output format, and constraint. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 the output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the description covers output format. However, it does not state whether the listing is recursive or just immediate children (a key distinction from directory_tree) or if hidden files are included. More context would improve completeness.

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?

The single 'path' parameter has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description mentions 'specified path' and adds the constraint of allowed directories, but does not clarify the expected format (e.g., absolute vs relative, trailing slash) or whether glob patterns are accepted.

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 action ('Get a detailed listing'), the resource ('files and directories'), and the scope ('in a specified path'). It also specifies the output format with [FILE] and [DIR] prefixes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like directory_tree or list_directory_with_sizes.

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 indicates the tool is 'essential for understanding directory structure and finding specific files,' giving a general use case. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like directory_tree or list_directory_with_sizes, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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