file_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains case-insensitive and accent-insensitive matching, the meaning of limit and max_depth (with collapsed=true), matched_count, and scan_truncated, and notes that empty directories are excluded. This is a thorough disclosure of behavior.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then efficiently details parameters with line breaks for readability. Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids quick scanning. It is appropriately sized for a tool with five parameters and a rich output.

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 (5 optional parameters, output schema present), the description covers all parameters and key output fields (matched_count, scan_truncated). It explains the query matching logic, depth behavior, and truncation semantics. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so exceptionally well: it explains root (as region name, S3 URI, or local path), query (with example and matching rules), limit, max_depth, and scan_limit, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: it searches a directory tree (MinIO/S3 or local) and returns a tree JSON plus a readable tree_text. It specifies the resource (directory tree) and the action (search/return), and distinguishes itself from flat-file listing or content search siblings by emphasizing the tree structure.

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 provides detailed usage guidance for each parameter, including examples for query and root, and explains behaviors like keeping parent branches of matched files and omitting empty directories. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like file_search or file_list, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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