create_directories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions creating directories 'including intermediate ones,' which adds some behavioral context (e.g., recursive creation). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., if paths exist), side effects, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Create multiple specified directories') and adds a clarifying detail ('including intermediate ones') without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, permissions needed, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that modifies the filesystem, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 the parameter 'paths' documented as 'An array of relative directory paths to create.' The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying the array handles multiple paths. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score 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 the verb ('Create') and resource ('multiple specified directories'), specifying it includes intermediate directories. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_files' or 'delete_items' by focusing on directory creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools (e.g., 'write_content' might also create directories).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for single directories vs. multiple), or refer to sibling tools like 'chmod_items' for post-creation adjustments. Usage is implied by the action but not contextualized.

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