List directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: recursion, depth control, and 'nested overflow protection'. It stops short of explaining what overflow protection actually does (truncation vs. error), so credit is partial.

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 wasted words; the recursive scope and depth control come first. It is efficient, though brevity here edges toward under-specification for a 5-parameter 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?

With no output schema and no annotation coverage of return values, the description should explain what a listing returns and how depth/overflow limits affect results. It omits both, and gives no guidance on device targeting, leaving the agent under-equipped for a 5-parameter 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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It hints at 'depth' and 'nested overflow' (maxEntriesPerDirectory) but says nothing about path semantics or the deviceId/deviceName targeting parameters, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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+resource ('List a directory') and adds the recursive scope plus depth control, so an agent knows it is a recursive lister. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely-named sibling fs_list, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (fs_list stands out as the obvious candidate). The agent gets no help deciding between this and other listing tools.

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