List directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful scoping constraint (non-recursive, immediate children only) but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or the default limit behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the core scope constraint (immediate children, not recursive) front-loaded before the path clarification.

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 listing tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. It omits return-shape hints (entries, ordering, truncation at the limit), which a listing tool could usefully mention given there is no output schema.

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% with only 2 simple parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'path is relative to the files root' restates what the schema already says, and it does not address the limit parameter at all.

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 (List) and resource (immediate children of a folder) plus a scope boundary (not recursive). It is clear what it does, though it does not name a sibling (e.g. search) to sharpen the distinction against alternatives.

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 'Not recursive' note implies the usage context versus a recursive/search tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the siblings (search, stat).

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