list_directory

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the return format and that the operation is a read (like ls). It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a simple list operation, the transparency is adequate.

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?

Three efficient sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return details and a helpful analogy.

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 low complexity and full schema coverage, the description completely explains the tool's functionality and return values. No output schema is needed as the description covers return fields.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying that 'path' must be absolute and 'distro' defaults to the system default distribution, providing contextual meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'directory contents'. Provides specific return fields (name, type, permissions, size, timestamp) and an analogy to 'ls -la', distinguishing it from siblings like read_file and run_command.

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 analogy to 'ls -la' strongly implies when to use this tool (listing directory contents) versus alternatives like run_command. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or comparisons to sibling tools.

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