list_dir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'sorted' and shows output includes name and type. However, it doesn't disclose behavior on errors (e.g., invalid path, permissions), recursion depth, or whether hidden files are included. The output schema exists but isn't described here.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource, includes key behavior (sorted, includes name and type). Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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 there's an output schema and only one parameter, the description is mostly complete. It covers the main purpose and behavior. Could mention error handling or hidden file behavior for full completeness, but not critical.

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% with one parameter (path) having a clear description and default. The description adds context that listing includes 'name and type, sorted', which goes beyond the schema.

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 tool lists directory contents (name and type, sorted). This distinguishes it from siblings like tree (recursive) and file_info (single file). However, it could be more precise about the type of the result (e.g., array of objects) and that it's non-recursive.

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 basic directory listing usage but doesn't explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like tree (for recursive listing) or glob_files (for pattern matching). No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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