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 mentions the return format (file/directory information with specific attributes) which is helpful, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, error conditions, permissions required, or whether it recursively lists subdirectories.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core function, the second specifies the return format. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste or redundancy.

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 tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and what it returns. However, it lacks important behavioral details that would be expected for a directory listing tool, such as whether it includes hidden files, recursion behavior, or sorting options.

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% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('List contents') and resource ('directory'), and specifies what information is returned. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'find_files' or 'search_content', which might also list directory contents with different filtering approaches.

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 'find_files' or 'search_content'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over its siblings.

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