List Directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The 'ls -la' analogy adds real context (detailed/long format, hidden files included), but nothing is said about recursion, output format, ordering, or pagination for large directories.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the format hint appended; there is no wasted text.

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 tool with annotations and a fully documented single parameter, the essentials are present. But with no output schema, the description does not convey what the listing returns (names only vs. permissions/sizes, sorting, hidden-file behavior beyond the 'ls -la' hint), leaving a gap for the caller.

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 100% and the single 'path' parameter is documented as an absolute path, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no constraint or format detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List directory contents') and clarifies the shape of the result via the 'ls -la' analogy, which signals long-format detailed output including hidden entries. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like read_file, get_file_info, or tail_file.

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?

No guidance on when to use this over read_file, get_file_info, or search-related tools, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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