ls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It fails to disclose whether the listing includes metadata (e.g., file sizes, permissions), that the path defaults to '.', or that it is a read-only operation. Lacking these details reduces transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple listing tool but missing details about output format (e.g., names only vs. full listing), default path behavior, and read-only nature. It covers the essential 'what' but not the 'how' or 'what to expect.'

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 0%, and the description partially explains parameters: 'remote directory' implies 'path' identifies the directory, and 'on a session/beacon' implies 'target_id' identifies the session. This adds basic meaning but no details on format, constraints, or defaults beyond what the schema shows.

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 tool 'List a remote directory on a session/beacon,' using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('remote directory'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'mkdir' (create), 'rm' (remove), and 'cd' (change directory).

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 usage context—listing directory contents on a session—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. However, the context is clear given the sibling tools.

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