dir_list

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 reveals key traits: default path behavior ('lists the user's home directory'), recursive mode depth (up to 3 levels), and the type of information shown (names, type, size, date). While it doesn't cover error handling or permissions, it does communicate the core behaviors adequately.

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 three sentences: first states the core action and output, second explains recursive behavior, third gives use cases and default path. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no extraneous wording.

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 tool is simple with no output schema, but the description covers purpose, behavior, default, and recursion limit. It might benefit from mentioning error behavior or whether hidden files are shown, but for a straightforward listing tool it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions for 'path' and 'recursive' (including defaults and max depth). The description mainly echoes these details ('If no path is provided, lists the user's home directory') without adding new semantics, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 function: 'List the contents of a folder/directory on this Windows PC.' It specifies the output (file names, type, size, modified date) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file_search by focusing on directory listing rather than search.

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 use cases: 'Use this to explore folder structures, locate files, check file sizes, or inspect directory contents.' It offers context for when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it misses the exclusions needed for a 5.

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