tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides zero information about side effects, output format, defaults, or edge cases (e.g., symlink handling). Agents cannot infer safety or behavior.

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?

Extremely terse (two words), but this is underspecification rather than efficient conciseness. A helpful description should include the core action and key constraints. Front-loading is not applicable when content is absent.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, the effect of 'depth', or how 'follow_symlinks' changes behavior. Agents cannot use this tool correctly without external documentation.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for the three parameters ('path', 'depth', 'follow_symlinks'). No default values or constraints are mentioned. Agents must rely solely on parameter names.

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?

Description is a noun phrase 'Directory tree' rather than a clear verb+resource. It does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., list, display, traverse). This is ambiguous and does not distinguish from siblings like 'list_directory' or 'list_files'.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Given siblings such as 'list_directory' and 'search_files', the description should indicate the tool's unique purpose (e.g., recursive tree view) but fails to do so.

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