send_directory_listing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is for server communication and instructs behavior (do not display listing). However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens if inputs are invalid. The description is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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: two sentences for critical usage guidance, then a clear list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 output schema exists (as per context signals) and the tool only takes one object parameter with two fields, the description covers the core behaviors and constraints. It could mention when this tool is typically invoked (e.g., after a server request), but overall it is fairly complete.

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% and the description repeats the same parameter descriptions. While the description structures them with markdown, it adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.

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 sends a directory listing from the agent filesystem to the server. It uses a specific verb ('Send') and distinguishes it from other send tools like send_file_content or send_working_directory. The important note reinforces its purpose for server communication only.

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 explicitly instructs not to display the listing to the user and to only show the confirmation message. This provides clear usage guidance for when and how to use the tool. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools or specify when not to use it.

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