list_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that paging is bounded. It says nothing about read-only semantics, hidden-file defaults, ordering, or what happens on an invalid path, all of which matter for a filesystem enumeration tool.

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?

Two short sentences with the scope stated first and the paging hint second; no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from omitting necessary content rather than from tight editing.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage across four parameters, and a paginated list operation, the description omits too much for an agent to call it confidently without inspecting the raw schema. The output schema existing relieves it of return-value detail but not of parameter and behavior detail.

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% and the description explains only the cursor ('next bounded page') out of four parameters. The path, page_size, and include_hidden parameters have no meaning added beyond their names and defaults, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and bounded resource ('one workspace directory'), so the agent knows it enumerates entries of a single directory rather than searching recursively. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like glob or search_workspace_text, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only guidance is 'Use cursor for the next bounded page', which is usage of a parameter, not a when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement. No indication of when to prefer glob, search_workspace_text, or get_file_metadata, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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