List Directory with Sizes

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that results are prefixed to distinguish files and directories, and states the path restriction to allowed directories. Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description helps the agent understand the output format and access constraints.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose. It is efficient but could be slightly shorter by combining the second and third sentences. No wasted words.

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 (not visible but present), the description covers the tool's output format, constraints, and purpose. It could include more on how sizes are reported for directories, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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 50% with the sortBy parameter having a description; the path parameter lacks one. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond mentioning sizes and prefixes, so it does not compensate for the missing schema description. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool lists files and directories with sizes, using [FILE] and [DIR] prefixes to distinguish them. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_directory which likely lacks size information.

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 mentions usefulness for understanding directory structure and finding specific files, and notes it works only within allowed directories. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like directory_tree or get_file_info, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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