Get Folder Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond the structured data: large folders are truncated with a note, and detail requires drilling into subfolders. Return-format behavior is not described, keeping this from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and kept to three tight sentences. The 'Args:' line largely restates the schema defaults and is the one mildly redundant element.

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 read-only tree tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description covers purpose, defaults, and the truncation caveat. Only the shape of the returned tree (markdown vs. json) is left unexplained.

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 the baseline is 3. The description echoes folder default 'Assets' and the depth 1-5 (default 3) range that the schema already documents, and it omits any mention of the response_format enum 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Map the project folder tree') and scopes it ('up to a depth', 'Read-only overview of how the project is organized'). An agent can tell this is the folder-tree mapper, but the description never names or contrasts a sibling like unity_list_assets, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Read-only overview of how the project is organized' implies the context of use, and the truncation note gives practical guidance ('drill into subfolders for detail'). However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or any pointer to unity_list_assets / unity_asset_dependencies for alternative views.

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