list_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that listing is non-recursive and includes type and size, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior around hidden files, default paths, sorting, symlinks, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the key scoping detail ('immediate children') comes first.

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 simple read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, the missing explanation of include_hidden and the lack of any parameter details leave an agent to infer important invocation behavior.

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 undocumented parameters. It does not explain the 'path' parameter beyond the tool's name, and it entirely omits the 'include_hidden' parameter's meaning and default behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('directory') and specifies scope ('immediate children') and content ('type and size'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_files or read_text_file, which have different purposes.

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 usage: use this to list a directory's direct children rather than searching or reading files. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_files or mention any exclusion conditions.

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