List Vault Path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action (list files and folders) but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether the listing is recursive, what the return format is, whether hidden files are included, or how errors (e.g., invalid path) are handled. This leaves significant uncertainty for an AI agent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and the object 'files and folders'. It is free of unnecessary words and the parenthetical adds value by clarifying the default behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the essential purpose and the path parameter behavior. However, it lacks details about the return value format and whether the listing is recursive, which are important for an agent to correctly use the result. Given the low complexity, the description is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema coverage is 100%: the 'path' parameter is described as 'Directory path relative to vault root. Omit for root.' The description essentially repeats this ('root when path is omitted') without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema already documents the parameter well, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'List files and folders at a vault directory'. The verb 'List' is specific, the resource is defined as 'files and folders', and the scope is a vault directory. It also clarifies the default behavior ('root when path is omitted'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like obsidian_read (which reads file content) and obsidian_search (which searches).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you need to list directory contents. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident and differentiated from siblings. The note about omitting path for root is a useful usage guideline. However, it stops short of stating 'use this instead of X' or listing 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.