workspace_list

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

It discloses notable behaviors beyond the safety annotations, such as 'null depth expands every directory', 'File paths are errors', and that 'dot files remain visible and links are listed without traversal'. These are useful operational details, though it doesn't cover the output format or performance implications.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action and a key behavior; the second packs parameter semantics and file handling rules. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, hidden-file behavior, and error conditions. It omits potential rate limits or pagination, but given the annotations and output schema, it is largely complete for correct 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify parameters, and it does: 'depth' (null expands all) and 'include_hidden' (controls dot directories) are explained meaningfully, adding semantic value beyond the bare schema types.

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 says 'Show a directory tree', which is a clear verb+resource, but it doesn't name or distinguish itself from its sibling workspace_find_files, which also deals with files. The purpose is understandable but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 like workspace_find_files or workspace_file_info. The tool lists directories, but the description offers no conditions or exclusions to help an agent select it over siblings.

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