list_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful constraint: paths are confined to the project root, implying a sandbox. However, it says nothing about recursion, symlink handling, error behavior for missing directories, or whether the listing is shallow, leaving notable gaps.

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. Every word earns its place and the scoping constraint appears immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with one optional parameter. Still, the description omits when-to-use guidance and any meaning for the 'path' argument, which are the remaining pieces an agent needs for correct 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% and the single parameter 'path' (with default '.') is never mentioned in the description. The description does not clarify whether the path is relative to the project root, whether an absolute path is accepted, or how the default is applied, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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 and resource ('List the entries of a directory') with a scope qualifier ('inside the project root'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like read_file or run_command, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus read_file or run_command, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage can only be inferred from the name and the phrase 'inside the project root'; the description offers no routing help.

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