get_file_tree

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

Lacking annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'No API call needed — instant response', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, staleness of results, or impact on state. The mention of 'indexed files' implies a pre-indexed state, adding moderate value.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The main purpose and key benefit are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers what it returns (organized directory, stats). Missing details about the return format (e.g., JSON structure) or potential limitations (e.g., large directories) prevent a perfect score, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a retrieval tool.

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% (one optional parameter with a description). The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema's 'Project root path (auto-detected from cwd if not provided)'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding of the parameter.

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 the verb (Get), the resource (project file tree structure), and what is returned (organized by directory with stats on languages and file counts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_folded or get_file_outline by specifying the full tree and stats.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'No API call needed — instant response' but does not specify context, prerequisites, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. Given the many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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