ds_list_directory_details

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it states that output is JSON, that entries include access lists for users/groups, and that files carry replica information. What is missing is any statement about permissions/auth needed to read a path or error behavior on invalid iRODS paths.

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 core operation is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences carry distinct payload (path type, output format, output contents, pagination). It is slightly repetitive in restating 'files (data-objects)' multiple times but not wasteful enough to drop below 4.

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 read-only listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: required path semantics, JSON output, what each entry contains, and how to page through large results. The notable hole is the absence of any routing guidance relative to ds_list_directory.

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 with defaults and max values. The description only restates the pagination intent, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (Get/list) and resources (files/data-objects and directories/collections) plus the scope ('full detailed info'), and it clarifies the iRODS-specific terminology mapping. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling ds_list_directory, which is the obvious alternative, so it stops short of 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 usage guidance is the pagination hint ('Use offset and limit parameters to paginate through large directories'), which is really parameter guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to choose this tool over ds_list_directory or ds_directory_tree, nor are there prerequisites or exclusions.

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