list_directories_by_size

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 implementation method ('Linux du command') and remote execution capability via SSH, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact on large directories, error conditions, or output format details.

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. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then provides a well-organized parameter section with bullet-like formatting. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, remote execution capability) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers all parameters thoroughly and provides implementation context. The main gap is lack of behavioral details about the operation's safety and performance characteristics, which would be more important if no output schema existed.

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 detailed parameter explanations. Each of the 4 parameters is clearly documented with purpose, constraints (e.g., '1-1000' for top_n), and dependencies ('required if host is provided'). 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 specific verb ('list directories sorted by size') and resource ('directories'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_directories_by_modified_date and list_directories_by_name. It specifies the sorting order ('largest first') and mentions the underlying implementation ('efficient Linux du command'), providing clear differentiation.

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 analyzing directory sizes with sorting) and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings that list 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.