list_directories_by_modified_date

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as using 'efficient Linux find command' and execution context (local vs. remote via SSH). However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, or output format, which are important for a tool with remote execution capabilities. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by implementation details and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (remote execution, sorting) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or authentication requirements for SSH, which are important given the remote execution feature. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining parameter semantics: 'path' is for 'Directory path to analyze', 'newest_first' controls sorting order, 'host' enables remote SSH execution, and 'username' is required for remote use. This covers all parameters, but lacks details like format constraints or examples, preventing a score of 5.

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: 'List directories sorted by modification date.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('directories'), and sorting criterion ('by modification date'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_directories_by_name' and 'list_directories_by_size' by explicitly mentioning the sorting method.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Uses efficient Linux find command' and explains when to use optional parameters (e.g., 'host' for remote execution, 'username' if host is provided). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_directories_by_name' or 'list_directories_by_size', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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