lb_list_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the scope limit of 'an allowed directory.' It does not disclose recursive behavior, hidden-file handling, or behavior for disallowed paths, but the safety profile is covered by annotations.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words; the verb and resource are front-loaded. The description is optimally concise for its scope.

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, with one required parameter and no output schema, so the description plus annotations provide a workable baseline. It still omits details like returned entry format and the precise meaning of 'allowed directory,' leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that directory_path points to a directory and that the result is the entries inside it, but it does not specify path format or allowed-path constraints beyond the word 'allowed.' This is adequate for one self-explanatory parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List files and directories inside an allowed directory,' making the core function clear and distinguishable from read/stat siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 use case is implied by the verb 'List files and directories,' so an agent can infer when to use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings or how to interpret 'allowed directory.'

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