list_directories_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool uses 'efficient Linux find command' which hints at performance characteristics, and describes remote execution via SSH when host is provided. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like error handling, permission requirements, output format, or whether it's read-only/destructive.

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 perfectly structured and concise. A clear purpose statement is followed by a well-organized parameter section where every sentence earns its place. No redundant information, and the formatting with 'Args:' header makes it easy to parse.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameter semantics. However, since there's an output schema (per context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about permissions, errors, or safety, which would be helpful despite the output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters. It explains what 'path' represents, clarifies 'reverse' controls sort direction with default, and describes the conditional relationship between 'host' and 'username' for remote execution. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('directories'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying alphabetical sorting by name (vs. by modified date or size in list_directories_by_modified_date and list_directories_by_size). The mention of 'efficient Linux find command' adds implementation context that further clarifies scope.

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 about when to use this tool (for listing directories sorted alphabetically) and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools that sort by other criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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