hosting_listWebsiteFilesAndDirectoriesV1

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

The description goes beyond a simple read-only statement by explicitly noting that symlinked entries are listed but never traversed into or resolved—a valuable edge case. With no annotations and no output schema, this adds genuine behavioral context that helps the agent understand how the tool handles symlinks.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and containing no filler or repetition. Both sentences earn their place: the first defines the decision-to-call scope, the second adds a parameter clarification and an important edge-case behavior.

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 adequately covers the purpose and key navigation context, but it does not describe the return format or pagination behavior, both of which are relevant given that no output schema is present. The schema helps with parameters, but more detail about what the response contains would make this fully 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful syntax by clarifying that `directory` is relative to the document root and represents a subdirectory browse operation, which complements rather than repeats the schema.

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 action ('List') and the target resource ('files and directories under a website's document root'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hosting_listWebsitesV1 or hosting_getWebsiteFileContentV1.

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 the tool is used to browse a website's file system and explicitly guides using the `directory` parameter to navigate subdirectories. However, it does not directly address when alternative tools, such as content retrieval or website listing tools, should be used instead.

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