list_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only 'List' operation and mentions glob filtering, but it does not detail whether subdirectories are included, how results are sorted, or how errors are handled. For a simple listing tool, this is moderate coverage.

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 compact and efficient: a one-sentence summary followed by concise parameter documentation. The examples are concrete and add value without redundancy. Every element earns its place.

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 simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the tool's purpose and all parameter semantics. The main gap is the lack of routing guidance among sibling list tools, but that is better captured under usage guidelines.

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%, but the Args section fully compensates by documenting both parameters. 'path' is described as a full directory path with a concrete example, and 'pattern' is explained as a glob pattern with examples and the default '*'. This is complete and far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 starts with 'List files in a directory, optionally filtered by pattern,' giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly describes filesystem-level listing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_feature_classes or list_rasters, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_feature_classes, list_rasters, or list_tables. The description implies use for raw directory inspection but does not state exclusions or selection criteria.

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