List Directory

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by detailing that the tool returns a paginated listing with path, type, size, and mimetype, and explains pagination behavior (defaults and max pages). This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured with an Args section and a Returns summary. No unnecessary information; every sentence adds value. It efficiently conveys purpose, parameters, and return format in a few lines.

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?

Description is complete for a read-only list operation: it explains all parameters, defaults, pagination, and return fields. It does not cover error scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., repository access), but given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately supports agent invocation.

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 description must fully explain parameters. It does so by listing all 6 parameters with brief descriptions, including default values and constraints (e.g., path defaults to root, workspace defaults to configured, pagination limits). This compensates completely for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it lists entries (files and sub-directories) of a directory at a commit/branch. The verb 'list' and resource 'directory entries' are specific, and the context is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_file_content or list_commits.

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?

Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives usage context (e.g., defaults, pagination) but lacks guidance on when not to use or which sibling tool might be more appropriate.

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