list_dir

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 does disclose sandboxing and dotfile skipping, which are important traits. However, it leaves ambiguity around the include_hidden parameter: saying 'dotfiles skipped' without qualification could mislead an agent into thinking hidden files can never be listed, when the parameter suggests otherwise.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and key constraints without wasted words. Every phrase adds value.

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 lack of annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the core listing behavior and sandbox boundary, but omits details about entry limits, sorting, and the interaction between include_hidden and the dotfile-skipping behavior. Still, the tool is simple and an output schema exists, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any parameter semantics. The word 'directory' loosely maps to path, and the parameter names are mildly self-explanatory, but max_entries and include_hidden receive no clarification in the description.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a directory'), and adds meaningful scope constraints: sandboxed to the workflow workspace and dotfiles skipped. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file and write_file, which operate on file content rather than directory listings.

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 implies the tool is for exploring workspace directories, especially given the sandboxing note. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, such as when a full file listing with hidden files is needed.

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