directory_tree

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses two useful behaviors: results are bounded and sensitive files are hidden. It does not mention output format, error behavior, path validation, or whether hidden files are silently omitted, so transparency is only partial.

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 one tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object, and the qualifiers 'bounded' and 'hiding sensitive files' add meaningful value rather than wasted words.

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 three parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the single sentence is not enough. An agent cannot tell how path and maxDepth interact, what a bounded tree looks like in the response, or how projectId maps to a registered workspace.

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 needed to compensate by explaining projectId, path, and maxDepth. It does not explain any of them; 'bounded' only vaguely alludes to maxDepth. All parameter meaning falls back to names and schema constraints, which is insufficient.

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 operation: list a bounded directory tree inside a registered workspace. It also adds the distinguishing behavior of hiding sensitive files, which separates it from content-focused siblings like file_read, file_write, and code_search. This is clear and actionable.

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 phrase 'inside a registered workspace' gives contextual placement, and 'bounded directory tree' implies use for structural exploration rather than file content access. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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