列目錄

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior: it lists direct members, does not recurse, and does not read content. However, it omits other behavioral details such as the return format (names, paths, metadata), handling of hidden files, error behavior for nonexistent directories, or sorting order. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action and immediately followed by the two key constraints. It is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and avoids unnecessary words. It could add a bit more detail without becoming verbose, but it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no annotations) but the description leaves out essential information about the output. An agent calling fs_ls will receive a list of directory members but is not told whether it gets filenames, full paths, file types, or metadata. There is no output schema to fall back on, so the description itself should clarify the return format. It also doesn't mention error conditions or edge cases (e.g., empty directory, permissions). This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly process the result.

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 defines a single 'dir' parameter with a default of '.', but has 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its semantics to be inferred from the property name. While 'dir' is intuitive, for a tool with zero schema coverage, the description should explicitly explain the parameter's meaning, format, and usage. It does not.

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 ('列出' = list) and resource ('目錄' = directory) with an explicit scope ('直屬成員' = direct members). It further clarifies what it does not do: '不遞迴' (not recursive) and '不讀內容' (does not read content). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fs_read (content reading) and fs_find (search).

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 constraints by stating it is non-recursive and does not read content, which tells the agent when NOT to use it (e.g., when recursion or file content is needed). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (like fs_find or fs_read) or provide conditional guidance on when to select this tool over siblings. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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