File Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral limitation, 'excluding blocked paths', but does not disclose output format or truncation behavior; still a reasonable mid-level contribution.

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 focused sentence that states the action, scope, and a key limitation with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded, every word contributing value.

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 read-only listing tool, the description combined with the rich schema and safety annotations is largely complete. It does not describe the exact return format, which is a minor gap, but an agent likely has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already structured, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('List'), a resource ('files and directories'), and a scope ('inside the workspace'), so an agent can tell it apart from content-reading or searching tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the behavior is unambiguous.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to choose tree over related tools like search, read, or inspect_workspace. The intended use is implied by the action 'List files and directories', but no conditions or alternatives are provided.

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