gal_list_dir

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key safe behavior ('without opening or modifying them'), which is valuable. However, it omits other relevant traits like recursion behavior, hidden file handling, or output format, so it only partially discloses the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action and a crucial safety qualifier, making it highly concise and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It communicates the core purpose and safety, while the schema covers the path semantics. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit indication that this is a filesystem/directory listing as opposed to an archive listing, though the schema's 'directory' reference partially covers that.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention the 'path' parameter at all, but the schema already fully documents it with a default and a clear description. Thus the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files'), clearly stating the tool's core function. The additional phrase 'without opening or modifying them' reinforces its read-only nature, which distinguishes it from siblings like archive_list or format-specific tools. Despite not naming alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 such as archive_list or image_probe. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or fallback tools, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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