list_directory

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent hints, lowering the bar. The description adds value by disclosing that it includes dotfiles and requires absolute paths, and the phrase 'Page through' hints at pagination behavior. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention return format or error behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each phrase (page through, authorized host, absolute paths, includes dotfiles) earns its place. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 read-only listing tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: pagination, path type, and dotfile inclusion. It does not explain what happens on missing directories or output structure, but those are minor for this complexity level. Siblings are clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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 for parameter meanings. It does not explicitly explain 'directory', 'limit', or 'offset'. 'Page through' weakly implies limit/offset but provides no syntax or format details. The schema's defaults and ranges are present, but the description adds minimal semantic value for the parameters.

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 action: 'Page through a directory' on the authorized host. It specifies the resource (directory) and includes a key constraint (absolute paths, includes dotfiles). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (which reads content) and search_files (which searches), making its purpose 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?

The description implies usage when listing directory contents but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Siblings like file_info and read_file are not mentioned, so an agent must infer the appropriate context. There is no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat implicit.

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