list_directory_tree

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses it returns names and sizes, bounded by depth and entries, and shows hidden files. Also notes it does not read file contents. Missing details on return format or permissions, but sufficient for a read-only tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then context, then parameter list. No wasted words; every sentence adds essential information.

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 output schema exists (handles return values), the description covers purpose, all parameters with constraints, usage context, and behavioral boundaries. Adequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations.

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%, and description compensates by listing all four parameters (path, max_depth, max_entries, show_hidden) with constraints (max_depth 1–6, max_entries cap). Adds value beyond schema which lacked descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it lists directory tree with names and sizes, depth/entry-bounded. It explicitly says 'understand a config dir's structure without reading any file contents', differentiating from sibling tools like grep_file or read_config_snippet.

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?

Implied usage: 'understand a config dir's structure without reading any file contents' suggests when to use, but no explicit when-not or alternatives. Among siblings, no other directory listing tool exists, so differentiation is inherent.

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