list_dir

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'bounded depth and entry limits' but does not state that the operation is read-only, does not describe side effects, permissions, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a fully transparent description.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and constraints. However, 'entry limits' is vague and unnecessary, slightly reducing clarity. Overall, it is concise but could be more precise.

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 0% schema coverage, the description should explain return format, error handling, and the meaning of 'entry limits'. It does not. An agent would lack sufficient information to interpret results or handle errors, making the description incomplete for this tool's complexity.

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 should add meaning for both parameters. It adds context for depth (bounded, recursive) but not for path. 'Entry limits' is mentioned but not reflected in schema, causing confusion. The description partially compensates for depth but fails for path.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'directory' and adds constraints 'recursively' and 'bounded depth and entry limits'. It differentiates from sibling tools like read_text_file (file content) and run_command (execution). However, it does not specify what is listed (names, sizes, etc.), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. The context of sibling tools implies use for directory listing, but the description itself offers no such guidance.

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