List Workspace Tree

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context on top: the full-load performance characteristic on large workspaces and the presence of an inTrash flag per node. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or failure behavior, but the performance caveat is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the output shape, then the scoping control, then caveats. The inTrash sentence is partially redundant given an output schema exists, so it is efficient but not maximally trimmed.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the performance/trash notes are good. The remaining hole is the unaddressed workspaceId default and whether the tree is ordered — relevant for a tool whose entire purpose is producing a scoped hierarchy.

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 only 50%: depth is fully documented in the schema, and the description merely restates its default. The workspaceId parameter is undocumented in both schema and description — it is never stated whether omitting it defaults to the current workspace or spans all workspaces, which materially changes the result.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Returns the full document hierarchy as a tree (roots → children → grandchildren)' — which clearly separates it from flat listers like list_docs and single-level listers like list_children. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction from the shape of the output.

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?

Usage is implied (use it to see the whole hierarchy) and it adds a warning that it 'loads all docs — may be slow on large workspaces.' However, it never says when to prefer list_docs or list_children instead, and the depth guidance is parameter behavior rather than selection guidance.

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