List documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the operation but does not clarify what 'supported documents' means, whether recursive defaults to false, what the output structure looks like, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that could impact navigation.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse, but its brevity leaves out important context, so it doesn't earn a 5 for being both concise and informative.

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 low complexity and two simple parameters, the description should provide enough detail to use the tool effectively. It does not explain the return format, default behavior for recursive, or what qualifies as 'supported', making it incomplete for an agent to reason about outcomes.

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%, so the baseline is 3. However, the schema descriptions are minimal ('Absolute path' and 'Recurse') and the tool description adds no additional parameter context. The agent can infer basic semantics but not nuances like path type or recursive behavior.

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 a resource ('supported documents in a directory'), which clearly conveys the tool's main action. It is distinguishable from siblings like read_document (reads a specific doc) and search_documents (searches), though 'supported documents' is slightly vague.

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 the sibling tools. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that listing is different from reading or searching without explicit direction.

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