list_dir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the trailing-slash convention for directories, which is genuinely useful output-shape context likely not derivable elsewhere. It is silent on non-recursive behavior, error handling for missing paths, symlinks, and ordering, leaving the mutation-free read semantics only implied.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the detail that matters for interpreting results. Zero waste.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with an output schema handling return values, the description is mostly adequate but leaves the `path` argument's semantics unspecified. A single clause on path resolution would make it complete.

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 must compensate for the single `path` parameter. It says nothing about relative vs absolute paths, the default of '.', or whether a file path would error — the only information an agent needs to call it correctly is undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List directory entries") and adds an output convention (trailing '/' for directories), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like glob or read_file, which is why it stops short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use list_dir versus glob (pattern matching) or read_file, nor any statement of prerequisites such as whether the path must exist. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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