列出目录

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the non-recursive 'direct children' behavior, which is useful, but does not disclose ordering, hidden-file handling, or path resolution semantics beyond the schema defaults.

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, short sentence with no filler. It states the core operation immediately and every word contributes to meaning.

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 no parameter descriptions, this description is too sparse. An agent cannot determine how to specify a subdirectory, whether hidden files are included by default, or what form the returned listing takes.

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%, and the description does not mention either the 'path' or 'include_hidden' parameters. The tool description provides no added meaning to help an agent understand what values to pass or how the defaults behave.

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 uses a specific verb ('列出') and a specific resource ('工作区目录的直接子项'), clearly indicating that it lists immediate children of a workspace directory. The word '直接' distinguishes it from recursive search tools like find_files.

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 usage for flat directory listing but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as find_files or read_many_files. There is no exclusion guidance, though the 'direct children' phrasing provides some implicit context.

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