get_directory_listing

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 behavioral traits. It only says 'with detailed information,' which is vague and fails to explain whether the operation is read-only, what details are returned, how errors are handled, or how recursion affects output.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, but the phrase 'with detailed information' adds little substantive value and could mislead by overpromising richness. It is concise but borderline under-specified.

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?

With no output schema, the description needed to clarify what 'detailed information' means—such as file size, permissions, timestamps, or recursion behavior—but it does not. The parameters are well-documented in the schema, yet the overall tool behavior and return structure remain vague.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with defaults and meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action ('List contents') and resource ('directory'), which clearly conveys the tool's basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'find_files', which could overlap with directory listings, so it is not fully differentiated.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of recursive file searching being better served by 'find_files', nor any conditions for choosing this tool.

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