get_project_tree

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

The description mentions that the tree view respects .gitignore rules, which is a behavioral detail. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it does not disclose result format, recursion behavior (though max_depth parameter suggests depth control), performance implications, or whether it includes file contents. Some transparency but not comprehensive.

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 12 words, no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose (returns a tree view) and appends the key rule (respects .gitignore). Every word earns its place.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and simple functionality, the description is somewhat complete but lacks explanation of the return format (e.g., JSON, list) or behavior with large directories. It covers the main constraint (.gitignore) but not other aspects like depth or hidden files (though parameters handle those). More detail would be helpful.

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 100%, so the input schema already describes each parameter (path, max_depth, show_hidden) with adequate descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states it returns a structured tree view of the project repository while respecting .gitignore rules. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_changed_files (diffs), get_project_index (index), get_semantic_context (semantic), and search_codebase (search). The verb 'returns' and resource 'project repository' are specific.

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 implies the tool is for browsing the project's directory structure, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. No guidance on when not to use this tool.

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