list_files_in_dir

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not mention whether the listing is recursive, how hidden files are handled, or what happens if the path is invalid. The schema's note about empty directories adds some context, but the description itself lacks depth.

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 a single, concise sentence that effectively states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 listing tool, the description is adequate. The schema covers parameter semantics, and the tool's behavior is reasonably clear. However, missing details about recursion or return format prevent a perfect score, as these are common ambiguities for directory listing tools.

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%, with clear descriptions for both dirpath and vaultId. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('lists all files and directories') and the target resource ('a specific directory within your Obsidian vault'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_files_in_vault by emphasizing the scoped directory focus.

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?

The description implies usage for inspecting a single directory, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like list_files_in_vault or get_vault_structure. The context is clear enough to infer, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative mentions.

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