tree

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses non-obvious behaviors: automatic reading of 2-line headers and dynamic token-aware pruning with three levels. This provides meaningful insight beyond the basic 'get' action.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core purpose and output content, the second clarifies the automatic header reading and pruning behavior. No wasted words, well front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's output content and adaptive behavior, sufficient for a read-only structural tool with fully described optional parameters. Without an output schema, it gives enough about return values (symbols, headers, line ranges) to guide the agent.

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 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the adaptive pruning mechanism (Level 2 to 0) which connects to max_tokens and include_symbols, giving context on how parameter choices affect output detail.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning a structural tree of the project with file headers, function names, classes, enums, and line ranges. The specific verb "Get" plus resource details distinguishes it from siblings like outline or skeleton.

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?

It clearly implies when to use the tool (to inspect project structure at varying levels of detail) and notes behavior based on project size. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like outline or skeleton, nor mention when not to use it.

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