blueprint_get_configuration_source_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that only directories (not files) are returned. It does not mention result size limits, pagination, or behavior when the path prefix matches nothing.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by the raw REST endpoint, which is conventional but adds nothing an agent can act on. No wasted prose in the functional sentence.

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 read-only directory-listing tool with a fully described 4-parameter schema and no output schema, the description conveys enough: it implies the return value is a set of directory paths under the given prefix. Missing only the linkage to sibling source/commit tools that would help an agent assemble the correct call sequence.

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%, including the non-obvious detail that `path` is interpreted relative to the configuration source's own path prefix, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already documented. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ("Shows directories") and resource ("configuration source repository") with the key qualifier that results correspond to Terraform configurations. An agent can tell this returns directories rather than files or commits. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as blueprint_get_terraform_configuration_sources or blueprint_get_terraform_configuration_source_commit_list.

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 says what the tool returns but never when to call it versus the sibling configuration-source tools (source list, commit list) or how it fits into a workflow. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no alternatives named; the only guidance is implicit in the noun "tree".

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