List local directory

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

The annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, idempotent nature of the tool. The description adds value beyond the annotations by telling the agent what kind of information it will receive (file type, size, modified time), which helps set expectations for downstream decisions. There is no contradiction with annotations, and no additional behavioral disclosure about truncation or depth limits is made, but the annotations lower the bar for this dimension.

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 only two sentences, both of which carry meaningful content. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the usage hint is brief. There is no redundancy or filler, making it as concise as possible while still providing useful guidance.

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?

With four parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the tool requires more explanatory detail than this description offers. It covers the basic listing action and return fields, but omits key operational details like path scoping, recursion behavior, depth limits, and entry cap semantics. This leaves too much room for agent misconfiguration.

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 bears the full responsibility for explaining parameters. It mentions no parameter semantics at all: 'path', 'maxDepth', 'recursive', and 'maxEntries' are all left unexplained. This is a critical gap for an agent trying to decide what values to pass or what each control does.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('files and folders'), and specifies the returned attributes ('type, size, and modified time'). This makes it instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like read_file, edit_file, and search_files, so an agent can confidently select it for directory inspection.

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 sentence 'Use before guessing paths or choosing files to edit' provides explicit situational guidance and tells the agent when this tool should be invoked. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, which keeps it just below a perfect score.

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