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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Get' and the phrase 'file tree' – it does not clarify what the file tree contains, whether content is included, or if any side effects occur. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes almost nothing beyond the structured data.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core operation. It is not verbose, but it is essentially identical to the title, so it earns its place only marginally – it is appropriately sized yet redundant.

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 getter with no output schema, the description leaves key details unstated: what a 'file tree' includes, whether it returns metadata, nested structure, or content, and how the required parameters (kind, nodeId) interact with the optional targetSpaceId. With four parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin for an agent to confidently predict 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond reusing the resource kinds already in the name and schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full weight.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as node_list_files_trees, node_file_read, or nodes_get. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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