ds_directory_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return format (JSON) and the scope of results (all entries under the given collection), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions required, result ordering, size limits, or error behavior on a bad path.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and with no filler. Slight redundancy between 'The output is in JSON format' and 'The output contains all entries...', but it is tight overall.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source on return values; it partially covers this (JSON, all entries under the collection). It omits behavior for nonexistent paths, permission requirements, and whether depth truncation is signalled, leaving gaps for a tool that returns unbounded recursive data.

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 'depth' fully documented including default 3, minimum 1, and maximum 10, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the path must be an iRODS path, which is a marginal semantic addition over the schema's 'path to the directory (collection) to list'.

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 ('Get') and resource ('recursive tree view of files and directories'), and maps iRODS vocabulary (data-objects/collections) to the generic terms. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-named siblings ds_list_directory and ds_list_directory_details, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite: 'The specified path must be an iRODS path.' There is no statement of when to prefer this recursive tree over the flat listings (ds_list_directory, ds_list_directory_details) or search tools, and no exclusion conditions.

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