list_workspace_directory

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open world. Description adds that it is non-recursive and lists a single directory, which is consistent and adds context beyond annotations (e.g., 'for LAYOUT only').

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope; second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded with key 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 no output schema and 4 optional parameters fully documented in schema, description covers what the tool does, its limitations (non-recursive), and when to use alternatives. Complete for its scope.

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 100%; all 4 parameters already have descriptions. The description adds minimal extra value ('under the repo root' reinforces path context). No contradictions or gaps.

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 uses specific verb 'list one directory (non-recursive)', references 'repo root', and explicitly states its scope 'for LAYOUT only'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like query/scout.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (for layout) and when not to use (to FIND code, prefer query/scout). Provides clear alternative and rationale ('do not walk the tree directory-by-directory').

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