ecp_files_directory_tree

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals that it includes files. It does not say whether it is read-only, whether it recurses, what the output shape is, or what `hidden_files` does. Even a read tool should state it is non-mutating and whether the tree is recursive.

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?

One tight sentence with the core purpose upfront and the sibling distinction in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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, no annotations, and undocumented parameters, the description provides only a high-level purpose and a sibling comparison. It leaves an agent guessing about path format, recursion, output contents, and the meaning of `hidden_files`.

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 compensate for the two undocumented parameters (`directory`, `hidden_files`). It says absolutely nothing about what these parameters mean, what format directory takes, or what the default behavior is for hidden files. This is a critical 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the directory tree including files') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ecp_apps_directory_tree ('which is folders only'). An agent can tell this apart from the main alternative without looking at schemas.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (ecp_apps_directory_tree) and states the condition that selects this one: when you need files included, unlike that sibling which is folders only. 'Mobile' is not needed but it gives clear context for the correct situation.

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