List host directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context by saying 'allowed directory' and 'real host', implying the tool operates on the actual filesystem rather than a sandbox. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors like sorting, pagination limits, or error handling for non-existent paths, which would be valuable beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and constraint efficiently. While it is very brief, it is appropriately concise for a simple read-only operation.

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?

Given the low complexity (2 optional params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, it omits key context such as what constitutes an 'allowed' directory, whether the listing is recursive or just immediate children, and how the tool handles invalid paths. The description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps that an agent might need to resolve via experimentation.

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 schema has two parameters (path and max_entries) with defaults but no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides no explanation of what 'path' or 'max_entries' mean, nor any format expectations. The tool name implies listing directory contents, but the description fails to clarify that path is the directory to list and max_entries caps the number of returned items. This is a significant gap.

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 resource (an allowed directory on the real host). It differentiates from sibling tools like directory_tree or find_files_tool by emphasizing 'allowed directory' and 'real host', which hints at constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly say what kind of entries it returns (files, dirs, etc.), so it's clear but not fully specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer directory_tree or find_files_tool, nor does it state exclusions like 'use find_files_tool for recursive searches'. The agent is left to infer the intended use case from the name and description alone.

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