list_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'filtering and depth control' but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are structured, or any rate limits. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description lacks guidance on usage, parameter details, and behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for effective tool selection.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'filtering' (hinting at 'file_name_glob') and 'depth control' (hinting at 'depth'), but doesn't explain the purpose of 'dir_name' or 'project', nor provide any syntax or format details. With 4 undocumented parameters, this adds minimal value beyond the 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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('list directory contents') and resources ('directory'), and mentions capabilities ('filtering and depth control'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'fetch' that might also retrieve file information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search', 'fetch', or 'read_content'. The description mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over others or any prerequisites for use.

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