List Workspace Tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool loads all docs and may be slow, which is valuable. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only or if it returns full document content or just metadata, leaving some uncertainty.

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 key info, no redundant words. The structure is efficient and clear.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the return format (e.g., nested objects). It mentions 'roots → children → grandchildren' but is vague on data structure. Performance warning is good, but overall the description leaves room for interpretation about what exactly is returned.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'depth' has description). The description echoes the schema for 'depth' but adds no new info. The 'workspaceId' parameter lacks schema description and is not elaborated in the description, so the description does not compensate for the 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?

The description clearly states that the tool returns the full document hierarchy as a tree, with a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'document hierarchy'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_docs' which return flat lists, and explicitly mentions the tree structure.

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 advises using the 'depth' parameter to limit nesting and warns about potential slowness on large workspaces, which helps the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like 'list_docs' for flat listings.

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