list_dir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states basic functionality without mentioning whether listing is recursive, includes hidden files, sorts results, or rejects non-directory paths, leaving important behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, direct sentence that clearly states the tool's function without redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple utility and is 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?

For a single-parameter listing tool, the description conveys the core purpose and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it lacks behavioral details like recursion and hidden-file handling, and provides no guidance on typical use cases, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema defines only 'path' with no description (schema coverage 0%). The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter's expected format (absolute/relative), type constraints, or default behavior. The word 'directory' in the description loosely implies 'path' is a directory, but no concrete semantics are added.

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 'List files and folders in a directory' clearly identifies the action (listing) and resource (directory contents), and it is distinct from sibling tools like read_file (file contents) or run_shell (commands).

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 usage context is implied by the tool's name and description: it is for enumerating directory entries. However, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer this over alternatives like run_shell (with ls) or read_file, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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