ds_list_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (JSON) and that entries correspond to the given collection, which is useful. It omits behavioral facts a caller would want: that it is a read-only operation, whether permissions or existence checks apply, and how errors are surfaced.

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?

Four sentences, and the middle two are largely redundant — the path/format statement and 'the output contains entries in the given directory path' restate what the opening sentence already conveyed. It is not bloated, but it is not tightly front-loaded either.

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 and no output schema, the description must stand on its own for a 3-parameter listing tool. It covers the essentials (what is listed, format, pagination) but leaves sibling differentiation and error/permission behavior unaddressed, which is a meaningful gap given several near-identical listing tools in the family.

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 100%, so path, limit and offset are already fully documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description repeats the pagination intent of limit/offset without adding syntax, defaults or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Get/list) and resource (files/data-objects and directories/collections in a path) and clarifies the iRODS path requirement. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely named siblings such as ds_list_directory_details or ds_directory_tree, which a caller could easily confuse it with.

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?

It gives partial usage guidance — the path must be an iRODS path and offset/limit should be used to paginate large directories. It never states when to choose this tool over ds_list_directory_details or ds_directory_tree, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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