Directory Tree

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies bounded recursion, depth and entry caps, and the flat array output format. Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description complements these well.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence immediately states the action and constraints; the second specifies the return structure. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: bounded listing, return format. It could mention the filtering by includeDirs/includeFiles, but those are in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a listing tool with good 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?

The description does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond mentioning depth and entry caps. The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., path restrictions, defaults), so the description adds little value. With schema coverage at 20%, the description should compensate but does not.

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: bounded recursive directory listing with depth and entry caps, returning a flat array. It uses specific verbs and resources ('listing', 'directory tree'), and the output format is specified. It is distinct from sibling tools such as sdlc_read_file or sdlc_repo_snapshot.

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 explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or suggest alternative tools. Sibling tools are listed but not referenced.

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