get_documentation_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'directory tree representation' as a string, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like depth, formatting, or performance aspects. The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Returns, Usage Examples, Note) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. It's concise, with each sentence adding value, though the usage example could be slightly more informative. Minimal waste, but not perfectly efficient.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, provides a return type, and references related tools. However, it could benefit from more detail on the tree format or edge cases, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's function. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't add unnecessary param info.

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: 'Get a tree-style overview of the documentation folder.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('documentation folder'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_documentation_file by mentioning that files are exposed via that other tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast the two tools' purposes beyond this mention, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 some usage context by noting that files are exposed via get_documentation_resource, implying this tool is for overview rather than file access. It includes a usage example, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no clear 'when-not' scenarios). The guidelines are implied rather than explicit.

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