List Directory with Sizes

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring the safety profile, the description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the output format ([FILE]/[DIR] prefixes to distinguish entries) and an access constraint ('Only works within allowed directories'). It does not discuss pagination or entry-count limits, but it earns credit for the output-shape and permission-scope details.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output format, followed by use case and the access constraint. The 'This tool is useful for...' sentence is slightly filler-ish, but nothing is redundant or bloated.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on responsibility for return shape and does so via the [FILE]/[DIR] prefix convention, plus it flags the allowed-directory restriction. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the sortBy behavior and result limits are left unstated.

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 only 50%: sortBy carries its own enum description, but path is undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'a specified path' without format or constraint details and never mentions sortBy at all, so it does not compensate for the gap. It neither adds nor detracts much beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Get a detailed listing of all files and directories in a specified path') and adds the distinguishing scope 'including sizes', which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_directory that lacks size information. It is clear and specific, though it never names the sibling it differs from, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

It offers context ('useful for understanding directory structure and finding specific files within a directory') but gives no when-not guidance and never names alternatives such as list_directory or directory_tree, which are the obvious competing tools in this family. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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