list_directory

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It only states basic listing behavior without disclosing if it is recursive, shows hidden files, or has output limits. The output schema exists but is not described here, so agent lacks insight into return structure.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. For a simple tool with one parameter, it is appropriately concise, though it could include more useful details without being verbose.

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 is simple but the description lacks completeness. It does not specify whether the listing includes hidden files, whether it is recursive, or how errors (e.g., invalid path) are handled. An output schema exists but its content is not hinted.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds value by stating the default behavior (current directory when path is null). However, it does not clarify path format (absolute/relative) or any constraints beyond that.

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?

Description clearly states it lists files and folders with a default of current directory. The verb 'list' and resource 'directory' are specific. Sibling tools (change_directory, get_working_directory, etc.) are distinct, but the description does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context where this tool is preferred over siblings like get_working_directory or run_command.

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