File Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'excluding blocked paths' behavioral note, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe output formatting, how depth/entry limits truncate output, or whether hidden files appear by default. With read-only annotations present, a 3 is appropriate — it adds some value but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose (list files/directories) and states the key exclusion behavior. It's minimal but appropriately so given the strong schema and annotation coverage.

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 output schema exists, so return value explanation isn't needed. Given the read-only annotations, comprehensive param schema, and simple listing purpose, the description is reasonably complete. The 12-level depth cap, 3000-entry cap, and workspace binding behaviors are all in the schema. What's missing is a hint about when the tree listing might be too large or how it relates to other exploration tools, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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%, so all 6 params are documented in the schema with defaults and ranges already explained. The description adds 'excluding blocked paths' as a global filter behavior, but the per-parameter semantics (path format, depth limits, entry limits) are fully covered by the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't add significant param-level insight.

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 'List files and directories inside the workspace, excluding blocked paths' — a clear verb+resource with a distinctive exclusion behavior. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling read tools like 'read' or 'search_project', which also navigate the filesystem. The purpose is clear but the scoping nuance (workspace-relative, blocked-path exclusion) is underemphasized given many similar read-oriented siblings.

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 implies this is a read-only listing tool for workspace files but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'search_project' or 'read_many_files'. There's no mention of output format or typical use cases (e.g. 'use to get an overview before editing'). Context is implied by 'workspace' and 'blocked paths' but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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