list_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list the contents,' omitting important behaviors such as non-recursive operation, hidden file handling (though implied by the parameter), error behavior for invalid paths, and whether it returns a simple list or detailed entries.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and 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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, and the parameter schema clarifies inputs. However, the description fails to mention that this is a single-level listing (not recursive), which is a notable gap given the sibling 'tree' tool. The minimal description is adequate but leaves room for misinterpretation.

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 100%, and both parameters ('path' and 'show_hidden') are self-explanatory. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already provides complete parameter semantics.

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 lists directory contents with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'tree' tool, which could also list a directory, but the name and verb are unambiguous enough for most cases.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tree' for recursive listings or 'read_file' for file contents. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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