List directory contents

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses automatic pagination (max 50 entries per call), the exact return shape ({name, path, is_dir, size}), and the effect of show_hidden=True. This gives the agent a concrete behavioral model without any contradiction.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose first, then behavior, then alternatives. Every sentence adds value and none merely repeats the title.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers pagination, return shape, option semantics, and sibling routing. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 already documents both parameters with defaults and descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description restates the path and show_hidden behavior but adds no substantial meaning beyond the schema, which fits the baseline of 3.

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 resource ('directory on the ZSpace NAS'), and clarifies its flat scope. It also names sibling tools it is not, making differentiation from zspace_tree, zspace_search, and zspace_info immediate.

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 explicitly says when to use: browse files, locate items, or pick targets for move/copy. It also gives clear alternatives with conditions: zspace_tree for nested structure, zspace_search when name is known, and zspace_info for metadata on a known path.

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