get_project_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses the key behavior of respecting .gitignore rules, which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any performance or permission considerations. It is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the semantic meaning, and it immediately states what the tool does.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description effectively communicates the output and key filtering behavior. It does not explain the return format in detail, but 'directory structure and file tree' adequately describes the result. It misses only a few nuances like hidden files or symlinks, but overall it is sufficient.

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%, and the only parameter max_depth is well-described in the schema ('Maximum directory depth to scan (default: 4)'). The tool description adds no additional nuance about this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Returns the directory structure and file tree of the local repository.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'respecting .gitignore rules' clause adds scope. It is well-distinguished from siblings like search_codebase, read_project_file, and inspect_tech_stack.

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 usage—it returns the repo structure—but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. No mention of 'if you need to search use...' or 'use this before read_project_file to locate files.' Usage context is only implicit.

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