List Directory

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by describing the output format (prefixes) and reinforcing the allowed-directories constraint. However, it does not disclose whether the listing is recursive or flat, behavior for non-existent paths, or performance characteristics. Given the annotations already cover safety, the description provides moderate additional context.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, output format, and constraint. There is no wasted text. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating parameter notes), but overall it is efficient.

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 an output schema (which can describe return values) and a simple single-parameter input, the description covers the basic purpose and constraint. However, it omits critical details: whether the listing is recursive or flat, what happens if the path is invalid or a file, and how to handle paths outside allowed directories. This leaves gaps for an agent that needs to handle edge cases.

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 0% for the single 'path' parameter. The description only mentions a 'specified path' without explaining format, whether it should be absolute or relative, or how to reference allowed directories. The constraint 'Only works within allowed directories' adds some context but does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent without clear guidance on how to construct the path value.

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 performs a listing of files and directories for a specified path, with a verb 'Get a detailed listing' and resource 'files and directories'. It mentions distinguishing features like [FILE] and [DIR] prefixes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like list_directory_with_sizes or directory_tree, reducing clarity for an agent choosing among them.

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 a constraint ('Only works within allowed directories') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_directory_with_sizes, directory_tree). It states it is 'essential for understanding directory structure and finding specific files', but this is vague and does not explicitly exclude other use cases or provide when-not-to-use advice.

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