List immediate project directory children

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: descriptor-anchored access rejecting symlink components and path escapes, the untrusted-data caveat, per-page reauthorization and rescan on cursor use, explicit failure on oversized directories, non-atomic (non-snapshot) results, and output size caps.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct operational information (limits, cursor semantics, ordering, security). It is dense and slightly long for a list tool, but little of it is redundant with structured fields.

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?

This is a complex, security-sensitive listing tool; the description covers pagination, limits, cursor behavior, ordering, hidden-file defaults, failure modes, and safety constraints, which exceeds what the schema and annotations convey. With an output schema present, it need not explain return shape, and it correctly doesn't.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it documents page size (100 entries), hidden-name handling (default exclusion matching includeHidden), cursor semantics (checksummed, stateless, revalidated per page), and path/workspace safety (descriptor-anchored, symlink rejection, path escapes). It never maps these behaviors explicitly to parameter names, so a small gap remains.

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 precise verb+resource (list names, relative paths, and kinds of immediate children in an authorized project directory) and immediately delimits scope with 'without recursion, contents or symlink targets.' An agent can distinguish this from read_project_text and search_project_text purely from the description.

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?

Usage context is implied by the scope constraints (non-recursive, immediate children only, hidden excluded by default), which helps an agent decide when this fits. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it versus read_project_text/search_project_text, so routing is left to inference.

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