localViewStructure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: auto-excludes (node_modules, .git, dist), performance warnings (depth=2 slow on large dirs), and pagination behavior. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 (<when>, <fromTool>, <toTool>, <gotchas>, <examples>). It is front-loaded with the core action and usage context. While comprehensive, it remains concise and each section earns its place.

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 (local filesystem, many parameters, sibling tools) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary contexts: usage scenarios, workflow guidance, pitfalls, sibling differentiation, and examples. It is fully complete for AI agent understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions key parameters (path, depth, pattern, filesOnly) in examples and gotchas but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema descriptions provide. Some parameters like 'charOffset' have empty descriptions in schema, but the description does not address them.

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 'View directory structure' and provides explicit examples and usage patterns. It distinguishes itself from siblings by outlining when to use this tool versus localFindFiles, localSearchCode, etc., making the purpose unambiguous.

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 <when> block explicitly describes when to use the tool, including workflow steps (start depth=1, drill depth=2, then search). It also contrasts with sibling tools in <fromTool> and provides situational advice like monorepo checks.

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