List website files and directories

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: symlinked entries are listed but never traversed or resolved, and directory paths are relative to the document root. This is useful beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds essential behavioral and parameter context. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 read-only listing tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the key operational context: document-root anchoring, subdirectory browsing, and symlink handling. Pagination and return-shape details are not described explicitly, but the parameter schema largely covers the remaining invocation details.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the `directory` parameter by clarifying it is relative to the document root, which is not fully explicit in the schema. Other parameters like offset, max_depth, and file_types are left to the schema, but that is acceptable given full coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'List files and directories under a website's document root.' It defines the scope precisely and distinguishes itself from content-reading tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hosting_getWebsiteFileContentV1 or other hosting tools. The 'Use directory' sentence explains parameter usage, not tool selection, so the description lacks exclusion or selection criteria.

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