get_directory_structure

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond a literal restatement—there is no mention of the tree format, recursion behavior, or how the result is structured, leaving the agent to infer the output.

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?

A single, succinct sentence conveys the core purpose with no filler or redundancy. It is optimally concise for a simple read-only tool.

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?

The description is too minimal for a tool with four optional parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain what a 'directory structure' entails (e.g., files, folders, nesting) or how the response is represented, leaving significant gaps in the agent's understanding.

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 100%, and each parameter has a clear description with defaults. The tool description adds nothing new about parameters, but since the schema already handles explanations, the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('directory structure of the shadcn-ui v4 repository'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch components, blocks, or themes. It avoids tautology and precisely states the tool's function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_component or list_components. There is no mention of scenarios where examining repository structure is appropriate or when it should be avoided.

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