list_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic listing action and default path but omits details such as whether the listing is recursive, what entry types are included, whether hidden files are shown, and the structure of the returned data. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It clearly states the action, resource, and default location in an efficient manner.

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 there are 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, parameter semantics, or any behavioral caveats, leaving the agent without crucial information 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?

The schema has a 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the 'ref', 'owner', or 'repo' parameters. It only tangentially mentions 'path' and 'repo root', leaving the agent to guess the meaning and relationships of the other parameters. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 resource ('files and subdirectories at a path in the repo'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_file_contents or search_code. It also mentions the default behavior (repo root), adding useful scope.

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 implies when to use it (when you need to list directory contents) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like search_code or get_file_contents. There is no mention of prerequisites or context where another tool would be more appropriate.

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