readDirectory

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

Discloses automatic ignoring of 'node_modules 等大文件夹', a behavioral trait not in annotations. No annotations are provided, so the description adds value by mentioning this filter. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (though implied by '列出').

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 one paragraph with front-loaded main action. It is concise but could be slightly more structured; no wasted words.

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?

Lacks output format details (e.g., whether paths or just names, recursion depth). While it covers when to use and auto-ignoring behavior, the missing return information leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes the filePath parameter including supported paths and default. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the tool lists all file and folder names in a directory, with a specific verb '列出'. It distinguishes from siblings like readFile (reads single file) and searchCodebase (searches) by positioning itself as a prerequisite for understanding project structure.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: '当你不确定项目结构、找不到某个文件在哪里时' and states '必须先调用此工具', establishing clear usage context and positioning it as a first step.

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