디렉토리 생성

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait—recursive creation—which is useful. However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling (e.g., if path already exists), permissions, or the fact that this is a write operation, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action, scope, and recursive behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential context: what it creates, where (inside Vault), and the recursive behavior. It lacks details about return values or edge cases, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, this is mostly sufficient. A 4 reflects that it is complete for its simplicity, though not exhaustive.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter 'path' (relative path in Vault). The description adds little beyond reinforcing the Vault scope and recursion, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: creating a folder (recursively) inside the Vault. The verb 'create' is specific, and the resource 'folder/directory' is explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_note and list_directory. It fully explains what the tool does.

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 implies usage (when you need to create a directory under the Vault) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There are no references to sibling tools or exclusions, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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