postit.ls

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the listing modes and style, but fails to state that the operation is read-only, how invalid inputs or parameter combinations are handled, or whether recursion applies to both modes. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 leads with the verb and clearly lists the two modes, making it highly readable and appropriately front-loaded.

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?

While an output schema exists, the tool has three undocumented parameters and no annotations. The description fails to explain how to set up the parameters for each mode or what happens when both dir and name are provided. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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. It hints that 'dir' maps to directory listing and 'name' to headings, but does not explain the 'recursive' parameter, parameter precedence, or expected formats. The compensation is minimal and incomplete.

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 states a specific action ('List') with two clear targets: dir contents in 'ls -la style' and headings of a postit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like postit.read (full content), postit.read_lines (specific lines), and postit.read_section (sections).

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 defines two explicit use cases—directory listing and heading listing—making it clear when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the context implies the appropriate scenarios.

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