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 states what the tool does but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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 description is extremely concise and front-loaded with a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output details, which are essential for effective tool use. The simplicity of the tool somewhat mitigates this, but key information is missing.

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 description adds no information about parameters beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters (path and max_depth), the description fails to explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the tree display, leaving significant gaps.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('display') and resource ('directory tree structure'), making it immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'ls' or 'find', but the focus on tree structure is reasonably distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ls' for listing or 'find' for searching. It lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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