list_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two real behaviors: the listing is bounded and symlink entries are not followed. It says nothing about recursion depth, ordering, error behavior for missing/unreadable paths, or what a returned entry looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably undersized for the disclosure needs, but nothing is wasted and the most important constraint leads.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of guidance and it leaves path semantics, permission/allowed-root requirements, and error behavior unexplained for a filesystem-listing tool.

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 two parameters (path and limit) are undocumented. The description's 'bounded' hints that limit is capped but never states the 200 maximum or that path defaults to '.', so it only partially compensates for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('directory') plus a scope qualifier ('bounded') and a safety trait (no symlink traversal). It is clearly distinct from read_file or get_file_metadata, though it never names search_files, the closest sibling, so the boundary between listing and searching is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search_files or list_allowed_roots, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the path must be inside an allowed root). The only implied usage comes from the word 'directory' in the name.

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