workspace_tree

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 correctly states the tool shows a tree structure but does not disclose default behavior (e.g., starts from workspace root), error handling for invalid paths, or whether hidden files are included. The schema provides some detail on parameters (depth default 3), but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context beyond the literal purpose.

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 sentence of nine words, containing zero filler or redundancy. Every word is meaningful and directly conveys the tool's function. It is optimally concise for its 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient. It captures the core function. However, it could be slightly more complete by clarifying that the output is a textual tree representation (e.g., 'returns a formatted tree') or that it is a read-only operation, but these are not critical gaps.

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% (both 'path' and 'depth' are described in the input schema). The description does not add any further semantics or usage hints for these parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Show directory tree structure of a project' uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('directory tree structure of a project'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like workspace_list (flat listing) and workspace_read (file content), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious.

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. It does not mention scenarios (e.g., 'for visualizing project hierarchy'), prerequisites, or when not to use it. Given siblings like workspace_list and workspace_search, explicit usage context would help an AI agent decide correctly.

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