List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral details such as the ASCII tree output, sorting, and the pagination mechanism ('continue with nextCursor'). However, it omits details like snapshot expiration (which is only in the cursor schema) and does not fully describe output format, keeping it at an average level.

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, tightly packed sentence with a clear front-loaded purpose. It avoids redundancy and every clause adds value, efficiently conveying the core function and key parameter behaviors without fluff.

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 tool with no output schema and six fully documented parameters, the description provides adequate but not exhaustive context. It explains the main behavioral aspects (tree structure, pagination) but does not describe the output format or error handling. Given the tool's simplicity and the rich schema, this is minimally sufficient but leaves room for more detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic context beyond the schema by explaining maxDepth semantics ('maxDepth=1 is top-level') and pagination behavior ('maxEntries sets page size; continue with nextCursor'), including a note about 'resourceUri' for hard-cap overflow, which enriches parameter understanding.

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 a specific action ('List') and the resource ('sorted directory entries and an ASCII tree'), going beyond a tautology. It provides useful keywords like 'sorted' and 'ASCII tree' that help distinguish the tool from others like find_files, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 offers parameter-level guidance (e.g., 'maxDepth=1 is top-level', 'maxEntries sets page size') but does not explain when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., find_files, search_text). There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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