sassy_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 adds useful details: the output includes [FILE]/[DIR] prefixes and depth controls recursion. However, it does not explicitly state that it's a read-only operation, nor does it mention behavior for hidden files, permissions, or error handling. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the secondary sentence adds pertinent parameter behavior. This is highly concise and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple and has an output schema, so return values don't need elaboration. However, the description could be more complete by clarifying the depth semantics (e.g., what depth=0 or depth=2 means) and by stating whether the path must point to a directory. These gaps are not covered by the schema descriptions (which are absent), leaving some ambiguity in 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. It explains 'depth' as controlling recursion, but the explanation is vague (e.g., how depth values translate to recursion levels). It does not provide any additional meaning for the 'path' parameter, which is left as an implicit directory path. The description offers minimal help to an agent trying to correctly set parameters.

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 clearly states the tool lists directory contents, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sassy_read_file (reads files) and sassy_search_files (searches for files) by explicitly targeting directory listing. The [FILE]/[DIR] prefixes add further clarity about the expected output.

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 purpose implies when to use it (need to see what's in a directory), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to pick. The mention of depth controlling recursion gives some usage context but doesn't clarify edge cases or compare to other file-related tools.

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