list_directory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states that the tool lists a remote directory with sizes and permissions, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly say whether the operation is safe (no mutation), whether deeper directories are recursed, or whether hidden files are included. Since it's a low-risk list operation, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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, complete sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the specific focus (sizes and permissions). Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

While the tool is simple and an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description fails to explain when to use this tool versus siblings like list_hosts (list configured hosts) or read_file. The lack of any usage context leaves an agent uncertain about the appropriate invocation scenario. This is a notable gap for a seemingly straightforward tool.

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 description coverage is 100%—both host and path are documented with meanings. The description adds no extra parameter details, just restates the tool's function. Following the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('list'), a specific resource ('remote directory'), and notable output attributes ('sizes and permissions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file (reading file contents) and run_command (executing commands), so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_directory is for directory listings while read_file is for file contents, nor does it offer any condition or exclusion. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and description, which is insufficient.

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