read_dir

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the path doesn't exist or the format of results).

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is very sparse. While concise, it could include more helpful details without becoming verbose. It earns its place but is minimal.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description should hint at the return value (e.g., list of file/directory names). It also lacks information about error handling or valid path formats. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'path' parameter. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 '列出工作空间目录' clearly indicates the action (list) and resource (workspace directory). However, it is somewhat ambiguous whether it lists the directory itself or its contents, but given the sibling tools, it likely lists contents. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_docs' which lists documents specifically.

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 like 'list_docs' or 'get_file'. There is no mention of problem context or exclusion criteria.

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