List Project Structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the recursion behavior and depth cap, and 'Lists' implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about output format, handling of large trees, or any failure modes for an invalid directory.

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, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the use case. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

For a simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, scope, and intended moment of use. The only gap is return-shape/pagination context, which is minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 schema already documents both 'depth' (default 3) and 'directory' (default '.'). The description restates the recursive/depth concept but adds no syntax, path-format, or boundary guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists files and folders'), plus the scope ('recursively starting from a directory in the project, up to a given depth'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search_code or read_project_file, but the recursive directory-listing operation 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?

'Use this to orient yourself in the project layout before editing or searching' gives a clear triggering context and implicitly positions it ahead of search/edit tools. It stops short of naming search_code as the alternative when the goal is finding content rather than layout.

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