list_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only promises 'detailed information' without specifying what that includes (e.g., file sizes, timestamps, permissions), and does not mention error behavior, whether the operation is safe/read-only, or any other behavioral traits that would help an agent anticipate tool 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?

The description is a single, short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the key verb and object. However, the phrase 'detailed information' is vague and does not add much value, preventing a perfect score.

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 schema covers the parameters well, but there is no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'detailed information' includes. It also lacks context on recursion, depth defaults, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. For a simple tool, this is borderline adequate but with clear gaps.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (path, recursive, max_depth) with defaults and examples, so the schema already provides solid semantics. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool lists directory contents (verb='list', resource='directory'). It is straightforward and understandable, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_files or get_file_info, so it misses the full 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_files or list_drives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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