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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral detail that hidden files such as .env are omitted, which matters for discovery. No rate limits or pagination context, but those are minor for a tree listing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage guidance. The parenthetical scope caveat is integrated without waste; nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple one-parameter read tool the description is nearly sufficient, with only the undocumented project_id as a residual hole.

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% for the single required parameter project_id, so the description carries the burden and fails to explain it at all — no format, no source, no hint about where to obtain the ID. This is the definition's clearest gap.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('file tree of a DreamAgent project') plus a precise scope qualifier: source files only, hidden files like .env excluded. An agent can distinguish it from siblings such as list_project_env or read_file without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use before reading or editing a file to find the correct path,' which positions it ahead of read_file/edit_file. It doesn't name an alternative or state exclusions, but the sequencing guidance is concrete.

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