list_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the permitted directory constraint and the return format, but does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or error handling. This partial transparency earns a 4.

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 structured with a clear purpose, a list of permitted directories, parameter explanations, and return format. It is a bit verbose but front-loaded with the main action. No superfluous content; it earns a 4.

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?

Even though there is an output schema (not shown), the description provides sufficient detail about the return format (JSON string with item list including names, types, sizes, modification dates). It also outlines the permitted directory scope. Minor omissions like exact error behavior keep it from a 5.

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 lacks parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds meaningful context: it explains dir_path as 'path to the directory to inspect' and max_depth as 'exploration depth (1 to 3, default: 1)'. It also attaches the critical constraint of permitted directories to dir_path. This significantly enriches the schema.

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's purpose: to inspect file and directory structures within authorized administrative paths. It explicitly lists permitted directories, and the return format (JSON string with item list) confirms it lists directory contents. This is sufficiently specific to distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 mentions 'authorized administrative paths' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like view_file_content or list_virtual_hosts. An agent may infer usage from the name, but there is no explicit guidance on conditions or exclusions.

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