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 only states what the tool lists, but doesn't disclose whether it's recursive, whether it includes hidden files, whether it returns absolute or relative paths, or whether it errors on invalid paths. Given the empty annotations, this is insufficient transparency.

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 appropriately brief (single sentence in Portuguese), but it borders on under-specification rather than conciseness. For a simple list-directory tool, one sentence is acceptable, but the sentence lacks useful detail that would justify the brevity.

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 a straightforward directory listing with an output schema and a single simple parameter. The low complexity mitigates some gaps, but the 0% parameter coverage combined with no behavioral details about recursion, hidden files, or error handling make the description incomplete for reliable agent usage.

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 for the undocumented parameter. The only parameter, 'rel_path', has no description text explaining its format, whether it accepts slashes, whether it's a directory or a file path, or how the default '.' behaves. The description adds zero 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Lista arquivos e pastas dentro do projeto' - lists files and folders within the project). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like read_file, write_file, and change tools, as it is a directory-listing operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state scope or contrast with similar navigation concerns.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when listing directories is appropriate, how it relates to read_file, or any exclusions/limitations. There is no context about whether it works on directories vs files only, or any behavioral constraints.

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