list_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'real-time reading' but does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, access requirements, or return format. For a read operation on a directory, more context (e.g., whether it recursively lists, includes file metadata) is needed.

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?

A single, clear sentence conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key action and target.

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?

The description mentions the specific repository, which is useful context, but it lacks information about the output format (e.g., whether it returns only names or metadata), pagination, and error handling. Given there is no output schema, this gap reduces completeness slightly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (ref and path), so the description adds no additional meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 tool reads a directory file list from a specific repository (ant-design/ant-design), with a specific verb ('读取') and resource ('文件列表'). It distinguishes from siblings like read_file (which reads file contents) and get_repository (which likely retrieves repository metadata).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing its use among sibling tools.

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