ecp_apps_directory_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Browse' safely implies a read-only operation, and the parenthetical clarifies intent, but it does not explain what happens with the optional 'directory' argument, what is returned, or any special behavior. It is adequate but not rich.

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 entire description is a single, efficient sentence. It front-loads the action and immediately reinforces it with two practical use cases, with no redundant words.

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?

For a tool with one undocumented, optional' and no output schema, the description needed to at least explain the shape of the 'directory' parameter and the tree output. It walks away, leaving the agent to guess how to call it correctly. The use cases are helpful, but the core semantics are incomplete.

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?

The schema provides only the name and type for 'directory' (string, optional) with no description. The description never explicitly says what to pass for 'directory' or how it affects the tree, leaving the agent to infer based on the parameter name. It offers some context but does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states a clear verb ('Browse') and resource ('the account's directory tree') and gives two concrete use cases. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling ecp_files_directory_tree, but the purpose is not vague.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to pick a location for a new app or to check where a git clone landed. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the provided context is enough to orient usage.

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