fast_get_directory_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'gets', implying a read operation, but does not mention what is returned (e.g., full paths, sizes, metadata), error handling, or access requirements. Key behavioral aspects are missing.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured to include optional details about depth and hidden files.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides no details on the return format or structure of the tree. Given sibling tools that list files, the agent needs to know if this returns a nested JSON structure or string representation. The description is incomplete.

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 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (path, max_depth, show_hidden, include_files). Parameter semantics are adequately defined in the schema.

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 'Gets the directory tree structure' clearly indicates a read operation for a hierarchical representation of a directory. It uses a specific verb and resource, and implies a tree structure which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'fast_list_directory' that return flat lists.

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 is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., flat list vs tree view) or any prerequisites like path validity or permissions. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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