List Workspace Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint as false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds a performance warning ('may be slow on large workspaces') and notes the inTrash flag on each node, which are valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides parameter context and a performance note. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized and 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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return format. It describes the tree structure (roots → children → grandchildren) and mentions the inTrash flag but does not specify other fields or how the tree is represented (e.g., list of root nodes with nested children). Annotations cover idempotency and openness, but the description could be more complete about the response structure.

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 50% (only depth has a description). The description adds meaning for depth by specifying the default value (3) and its role in limiting nesting. However, workspaceId is not addressed, leaving its purpose unclear. The description adds moderate value over the schema but does not fully compensate for the parameter lacking schema documentation.

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 the tool returns the full document hierarchy as a tree (roots → children → grandchildren), which is specific and distinct from siblings like list_children (direct children only) or list_docs (flat list). The verb 'Returns' combined with the resource 'document hierarchy as a tree' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions using the depth parameter to limit nesting and warns that loading all docs may be slow on large workspaces, which implies caution. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_children or get_orphan_docs, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. The guidance is adequate but not comprehensive.

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