list_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only explains entry_type values. It doesn't disclose authentication needs, whether recursion is supported, output shape, or potential side effects. 'List' implies a read operation, but most behavioral context is absent.

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 very concise with no filler; both sentences contribute information. It front-loads the action and the entry_type filter. However, it is so terse that it leaves out significant context, though the existing text is efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide substantially more context. It does not explain token requirements, recursion behavior, or how path and repo_id interact. An agent would have to infer most of the tool's behavior.

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, but it only clarifies entry_type. The other seven parameters — path, repo_id, recursive, repo_token, library_name, account_token, and session_token — receive no semantic explanation beyond their names. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('directory'), so an agent knows the operation. It also provides entry_type semantics ('f' files, 'd' folders), which helps distinguish it from siblings like create_directory. However, it doesn't describe what scope or path context applies, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that search_files is for searching or how list_directory differs from read_file. An agent gets no routing help from the text itself.

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