list_directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds functional detail about filtering and recursion, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as sorting, whether only files or also directories are returned, or how paths are formatted.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and then gives a concrete use case. The bilingual repetition is justified by the target audience and does not add unnecessary bulk.

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 read-only, low-complexity tool, the description plus complete parameter schema and annotations are nearly sufficient. It lacks an explicit statement of the return format/output shape, and there is no output schema, but 'list a directory' strongly implies an array of entries and the use case clarifies intent.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats the extension filter and recursion concepts briefly, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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: 'List a directory', with optional filtering by extension and recursion. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling file/knowledge tools such as get_file_info or file_exists.

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 gives a clear intended use case: 'Use it to batch process textures or proxy files.' This provides context for when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention exclusions or direct the agent to alternative tools for single-file checks or scene-asset queries.

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