tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — symlinks and common generated directories are skipped — which an agent cannot learn from the schema. But it omits what happens at the limit boundary (truncation? error?) and any default depth, which matters for a bounded traversal.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the skip caveat. Dense and well ordered; only slightly terse given the undocumented parameters.

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 is the only source for return shape, and it says nothing about the entry format, ordering, or truncation signaling. Combined with three fully undocumented parameters and no alternatives guidance, the definition is under-specified for a traversal tool.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does not. 'bounded depth' hints at the depth knob but gives no default or interpretation, and neither path nor limit is mentioned at all — an agent cannot tell whether limit truncates output or how path defaults (cwd?).

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 and resource ('List directory entries') with a scoping qualifier ('to a bounded depth'), which clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like write and edit. However, it never names or contrasts against glob, the closest read-side sibling, so full sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose tree over glob, grep, or read, nor any mention of preconditions or exclusions beyond the skip behavior. The agent must infer that this is for directory-shaped exploration rather than pattern matching.

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