list_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the listing is immediate and confined to the workspace, and it explains the include_hidden option, but it does not mention error behavior, sorting, or other edge cases. For a simple read-only list, the core behavior is adequately exposed.

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 main purpose, and uses a clean Args block. Every sentence adds meaningful information without any filler or repetition.

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 are covered elsewhere. The description adequately covers the workspace boundary, the non-recursive nature, and hidden-file handling. It could explicitly mention why someone would choose this over project_tree, but that is a minor gap.

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?

Both parameters are fully explained in the description: path is described as relative to the workspace root with a default, and include_hidden is described as controlling dotfile inclusion. This goes well beyond the schema, which only provides names, types, and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('directory'), and scopes it to the workspace. The word 'immediate' clearly distinguishes this from a recursive tree listing, which is a key differentiator from sibling tools like project_tree.

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 the tool is for listing a directory's contents but gives no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. It does provide useful context by restricting to the workspace root, but it never mentions when to use project_tree or search_files instead.

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