list_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention whether listing is recursive, includes hidden files, what error occurs for invalid paths, or the output format. This is a sparse disclosure for a tool that will be used in scripted contexts.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining what the tool returns and how it behaves in edge cases. It only says 'list contents' without specifying the response structure (e.g., file names only, metadata, sorting) or handling of errors like nonexistent directories. This leaves a significant gap for an agent to correctly interpret results.

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 already documents the only parameter 'path' with a clear description including default behavior (home directory). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the semantics effectively.

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 contents of a directory on the remote server' clearly specifies the action (list) and resource (directory contents) within a remote context. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (reads files) and write_file (writes files), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 a clear context for use: whenever directory contents need to be listed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the siblings are visually distinct (execute_command, read_file, write_file, connect_ssh), so the tool's scope is evident. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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