directory_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: truncation is signaled, recursion and entries are bounded, max_entries above 1000 is refused, and Filekeeper's .filekeeper state directory is hidden.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence carries useful information: read-only status, bounded results, truncation signaling, max_entries cap, and hidden internal state directory.

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?

For a modest four-parameter listing tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the important behavioral constraints. It could be stronger by explaining glob and recursive behavior more directly, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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. It clarifies that path is workspace-relative and that max_entries has a server-enforced cap of 1000, but it leaves glob and recursive semantics largely undocumented beyond a general statement about configured recursion depth.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List directory entries under a workspace-relative path.' It is specific enough to distinguish from mutation siblings like directory_create or directory_delete, though it does not explicitly contrast with search-oriented siblings such as file_search or content_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?

Usage is implied by the listing operation and the workspace-relative path context, but there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance or named alternatives. An agent can infer the basic use case, but the description does not say when to prefer directory_list over file_search or other listing mechanisms.

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