list_directory

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a JSON string with directory entries or an error message, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or what metadata is included, which is minimal for a list operation.

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 concise, front-loaded with a clear one-liner purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and parameter details. However, it does not specify the structure of the returned JSON or what 'metadata' includes, which could aid the agent in understanding the output without inspecting the output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing an 'Args' section that clearly explains each parameter (path, include_hidden, max_results) with their purposes and defaults, adding significant value beyond the input schema.

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 'List immediate children of a directory with metadata,' specifying the verb 'List' and resource 'immediate children,' distinguishing it from recursive file search tools like 'find_files' and other file operations.

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 implies usage for listing directory contents but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_files' or 'get_file_info', nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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