vdir

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only, no side effects' and mentions 'Returns JSON with extended per-entry metadata,' consistent with the annotation. However, it lacks details on how parameters like `limit` or `max_depth` affect behavior or output format, which would be beneficial.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose/alias, safety/output type, and usage guidelines. No redundant words. Front-loaded with the core function.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, safety, and alternatives. It could mention default behavior or limitations (e.g., default max_depth=2), but overall provides sufficient context for correct 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, only general context about verbose output and JSON metadata. No contradiction or additional clarity needed.

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 directory contents with verbose (long-format) output — alias for 'ls -l'.' It specifies the action (list), resource (directory contents), and distinguishes from siblings by referencing ls, dir, and stat.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('when you need detailed file information'), when not to use ('Not for compact listings', 'Not for single-file detail'), and provides alternatives ('ls', 'dir', 'stat'), plus a 'See also' list.

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