get_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read operation, requires authentication, or what side effects occur. The brief text only says 'Return', implying read-only, but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 overly terse (5 words). While conciseness is valued, this lacks necessary details—it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The single sentence conveys the core action but omits context, parameters, and differentiation.

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?

Given no output schema and only a bare input schema, the description fails to explain what the tree structure contains (e.g., paths, names, children, depth). For a hierarchical tool, this is incomplete. Sibling tools have richer descriptions, making this one inadequate.

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%, meaning the schema provides no documentation for parameters. The description does not mention filePath or maxDepth, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage. No added value beyond the raw type/default.

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 verb ('Return') and a resource ('folder tree structure'), but the term 'folder tree structure' is ambiguous—it could refer to bookmarks, file system, or other hierarchical data. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_bookmark_content' or 'read_bookmarks'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many reading/searching tools, but the description offers no context such as 'use when you need the folder hierarchy' or 'use with filePath to specify a starting directory'.

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