directory_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds deprecation status and return type (JSON tree). While it doesn't detail error cases or performance, the deprecation warning sufficiently covers behavioral expectations for a read-only tool.

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?

Two concise sentences. The deprecation warning is front-loaded, immediately guiding the agent to the preferred tool. No redundant information.

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 deprecated tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential: deprecation, return type, and parameters. It could clarify the output format more, but the output schema exists. The description is sufficiently complete for the tool's role.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description lists both parameters with types and requiredness. However, it does not explain the semantics of 'excludePatterns' (e.g., what patterns to exclude, format). The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 that the tool is deprecated and points to the recommended alternative 'tree'. It specifies the tool returns a JSON tree structure for compatibility, which distinguishes it from the 'tree' sibling.

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?

Explicitly advises using 'tree' instead, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. Also mentions compatibility with mcp-js-servers, giving context for its continued existence.

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