list_directory

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

The description discloses key behaviors: lists recursively, returns absolute paths, excludes directories. Since no annotations are provided, this description carries the burden and covers the important aspects of the operation, though it does not mention edge cases like sorting or hidden files.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first states what it does, the second explains the use case and reinforces the 'files only' nuance. Well-structured and to the point.

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 list operation, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the output format (absolute paths) and the exclusion of directories. The presence of an output schema likely details the return type, so the description need not repeat that.

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 single parameter 'path' is described indirectly as 'a directory' in the first sentence. While the schema provides no description, the tool description clarifies that the path must refer to a directory, giving essential context for the parameter.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'directory', with specific behavior: recursive, absolute paths, files only. It effectively distinguishes itself from read_file and other sibling tools that operate on individual files.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Used to discover what's actually in a research folder without already knowing the file names.' It implies the alternative situation (if you need file contents, use read_file), though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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