list_dir

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like what types of files/directories are listed, whether hidden files are included, or how results are formatted. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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 extremely concise at just 4 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This is an example of appropriate brevity for a simple operation.

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 that there's an output schema (which presumably describes the return format), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too minimal. It doesn't provide enough context about how the tool behaves or what the parameters mean, making it only adequate for basic understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameter meaning but fails to do so. 'List files and directories' gives no insight into what parameters like 'relative_path', 'recursive', 'skip_ignored_files', or 'max_answer_chars' mean or how they affect the listing operation.

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 'List files and directories' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('files and directories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_memories' or 'get_symbols_overview' that might also list different types of resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or when other tools like 'find_symbol' or 'list_memories' might be better choices for different types of listing operations.

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