get_directory_listing

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the listing is recursive, what format the result is in, or whether it works with branches/tags. The purpose is stated but not the behavior beyond the basic list action.

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, efficient sentence that immediately states the action and resource. No extraneous 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 lists files and directories and has no output schema, the description should hint at what information is returned (e.g., only names, or also metadata). It does not, leaving agents uncertain about the output structure.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating that it lists at a given path. It does not clarify parameter constraints or relationships.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'files and directories at a given path in a Bitbucket Server repository'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_content (file content) or get_repo_branches (branches), but could be more precise by indicating it lists immediate children only.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_file_content for file contents, get_repo_branches for branches). The description lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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