directory_exists

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits. It does not state the return type (e.g., boolean), error behavior when directory doesn't exist, or required permissions. For a tool with no output schema, more transparency is needed.

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 immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the return value or usage note.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description omits critical context like the return value (true/false?), error conditions, and any prerequisites. With no output schema and no annotations, a more complete description is warranted.

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?

The input schema has 2 required parameters with zero description coverage. The tool description adds no detail beyond the parameter names and types, such as format constraints, examples, or relationships between 'filesystem' and '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 a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'directory' with scope 'in the specified filesystem'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_directory' or 'file_exists' by focusing on existence checking.

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 as a precondition for operations (e.g., before creating a directory), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative existence checks like 'file_exists', nor any conditions or prerequisites.

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