list_directory

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

The description carries the full burden due to lacking annotations. It does disclose useful behavioral context, such as returning directory listing with permissions, size, and modification time, and the host_name default behavior. However, it omits details like whether listing is recursive, includes hidden files, or how errors are handled, so transparency is moderate.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 list tool with no required parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description adequately covers the return format and parameter usage. It doesn't discuss edge cases or error behavior, but for this low-complexity tool, the provided context is sufficient.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well. It clarifies that 'path' defaults to '/' and that 'host_name' refers to a named host from SSH_HOSTS config, falling back to the default host when omitted. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 specific verb+resource: 'List files and directories at a remote path.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like read_file, search_files, and list_processes, which perform different actions.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description simply states what the tool does and explains its parameters. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would make this tool the right choice versus a sibling, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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