fm_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only implies a read operation by naming the output type. It does not disclose recursion behavior, hidden-file/symlink handling, or whether the operation is safe/read-only, which is a substantial gap given zero annotation coverage.

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?

At two short lines, the description is efficiently front-loaded with the core concept and the parameter explanation. No filler or repetition exists.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, and the path parameter is covered. However, with no annotations and no usage context or behavioral detail, the description is only minimally viable for an agent deciding when and how to call it.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly defines path as 'Starting path,' adding meaning beyond the schema's bare title and default. For a single-parameter tool this is adequate, though it doesn't specify path format or accepted files/directories.

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 says only 'Directory tree,' identifying the resource but not stating an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'show.' It does not differentiate from sibling tools like fm_list or fm_disk_usage, leaving the agent to infer that this tool returns a hierarchical directory view.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use fm_tree versus fm_list, fm_search_files, or other file-manager siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are provided; the description is limited to an arg definition.

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