listdir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like recursion, filtering, or whether it reads the directory or simulates. Only a single verb 'list' implies reading, but no further details.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness; it is appropriately sized for its simplicity, but lacks necessary detail.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to cover return format, error conditions, or whether the listing is recursive. For a simple directory listing tool, it is insufficient for an AI agent to confidently select and invoke 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 has two parameters (project_path required, dir_path optional) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names—no explanation of what each parameter does, how they interact (e.g., dir_path relative to project_path), or default behavior.

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?

Description states 'List contents of a directory' which is a specific verb-resource pair, but it is vague about what 'contents' includes (files, subdirectories, both?) and does not distinguish from sibling tools like bash (which can ls) or glob (which pattern-matches files).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bash ls, glob). No context on prerequisites or limitations.

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