List Directories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose key behavior: returned output is a tree of one-line gists, elided content is marked '⟨…⟩ +N', and depth choices have token budgets. It does not cover side effects, auth, or error behavior, but for a read-only listing tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 text is dense and disorganized, burying the core 'folders only' behavior mid-way and appending shell-specific fallback instructions ('sct --help', venv python path) that are not relevant to MCP invocation. The opening sentence is vague and does not front-load the tool's main purpose.

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?

It covers the main output shape (directory tree, one-line gists) and depth-related behavior, which is useful since there is no output schema. But without parameter documentation for max_depth and respect_gitignore, and without clarifying the first-sentence ambiguity, an agent cannot reliably invoke all parameters correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it only hints at directory and refers to '--depth quick/normal/deep', which does not map cleanly to the max_depth integer parameter and could mislead an agent into passing those strings. respect_gitignore is not mentioned at all.

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 identifies the resource as directory hierarchy ('Folders only, no files: the directory hierarchy') and the result as a tree with one-line gists, which is more specific than merely restating the tool name. However, the opening 'Skeleton of files or a directory' blurs whether files are included, and no sibling is named, so it is not a perfect differentiator.

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?

It gives a clear scope ('Folders only, no files') that tells an agent when this directory-tree tool is appropriate and when it is not, and it explains depth-mode trade-offs in token budgets. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like scan_directory or preview_directory, so it stops short of a 5.

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