list_directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: it skips node_modules, .git, and build outputs by default unless includeIgnored is set. It still does not describe depth behavior or return format, so it remains adequate rather than rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical adds the key filtering behavior without disrupting readability.

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?

For a read-only directory listing tool whose annotations already cover safety and idempotence, the description is mostly sufficient. However, because there is no output schema and depth is undocumented, an agent still lacks complete context on recursion behavior and result format.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains includeIgnored implicitly through the ignore-skipping behavior, but depth is not mentioned at all, and its default and maximum of 10 are left for the schema alone.

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?

Specifies the verb 'Tree listing' and the resource 'directory', so the core action is clear. It does not distinguish itself from nearby filesystem siblings such as find_files or search_code, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions beyond the default ignore behavior. Usage is only weakly implied by the purpose itself.

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