File Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral detail that blocked paths are excluded, which is useful. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, or limits, but these are partially covered by parameter descriptions. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List files and directories') and adds a meaningful qualifier ('excluding blocked paths'). There is no wasted text; every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations that specify safety, the description is sufficient. It states the scope and the key constraint. The absence of an output schema is not a concern because the tool's output is obvious from its purpose, and the description already clarifies the scope.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions (each parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents. There is no need for compensation since coverage is high.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('files and directories inside the workspace'), and adds the constraint 'excluding blocked paths.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'read' and 'search' by defining its own scope and purpose.

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 implies usage by stating what it does, but does not explicitly specify when to use it over alternatives such as 'search' or 'read.' There is no mention of scenarios where it would be preferable or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and description.

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