everything_list_directory

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

Annotations already flag readOnly and non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful caveats: results are index-derived, missing index entries are omitted, and recursive=False limits to direct children. This helps agents set expectations about completeness and traversal without contradicting the 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?

Two short sentences carry the essential scoping and behavioral warnings, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No filler or repetition of schema information.

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 tool with six parameters including nested filters and no output schema, this description is too sparse to be fully self-sufficient. It omits any guidance on filters, pagination/limit/offset, kind semantics, and return shape beyond a brief completeness caveat.

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?

The description does clarify the recursive parameter's default behavior, which is useful beyond the bare schema. However, with 0% top-level schema description coverage and six parameters, it leaves kind, path, limit, offset, and filters completely unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it browses indexed directory children rather than performing a raw filesystem listing. It clearly communicates the core action, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool for contrast.

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 phrase 'not a filesystem listing' and 'indexed children' imply that this tool is for navigating the index rather than searching globally or checking raw disk state. It lacks an explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternatives are named.

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