tree_to_mindmap

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: directories become category nodes, files become leaf nodes, hidden files and VCS directories are automatically skipped, order_index is implicit, and parent values are pre-computed. It also clarifies the return format. This provides good transparency, though it does not mention error handling or path validation.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear hierarchy: purpose, integration hints, behavioral details, parameter explanations, and return value. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No redundant or tautological statements.

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 the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers scanning behavior, node categorization, hidden file handling, parameters, and integration. It does not detail the exact structure of the output nodes (since output schema exists) and could mention error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that root_path is an absolute path and root_title when empty uses the directory name. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is crucial. It clarifies the purpose of each parameter and their effects, though it lacks details on validation or default behavior beyond the empty string case.

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 the tool's purpose: scanning a directory tree and returning a JSON array of simplified mindmap nodes. It includes specific details about the output being ready for use with sibling tools replace_mindmap and add_nodes, and mentions automatic skipping of hidden files and VCS directories, making the purpose distinct and well-defined.

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 implies usage context by stating the output is ready for replace_mindmap or add_nodes, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus the similar sibling inject_directory_to_mindmap or other alternatives. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, leaving room for ambiguity.

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