get_file_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'complete hierarchy' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like performance implications, depth limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. Every part of the description contributes directly to explaining what the tool does.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool that likely returns complex hierarchical data, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return structure, depth, or how to interpret the hierarchy, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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 100%, with the parameter 'path' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'complete hierarchy of the Roblox Studio project', specifying it includes 'script types, models, and folders'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_project_structure' by focusing on hierarchy rather than general structure, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_structure', 'get_instance_children', or 'search_files'. The description implies a hierarchical view but doesn't specify use cases or exclusions.

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