List Workspace Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a performance trait ('may be slow on large workspaces') and indicates return node details ('inTrash flag'), which are not covered by annotations. No contradiction exists, and the added context is valuable.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide usage detail and a warning. There is no redundant filler, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description adequately covers the tool's core behavior: tree structure, depth limiting, performance note, and node flag. The only minor gap is that workspaceId's role remains implicit, but overall completeness is strong for a listing tool.

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 50%, covering only 'depth,' while 'workspaceId' has no description. The description repeats depth's default but does not clarify the meaning or requiredness of workspaceId. It fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter, providing minimal additional value beyond 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Returns the full document hierarchy as a tree (roots → children → grandchildren).' This uses a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('document hierarchy'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_docs or list_children by emphasizing the tree structure and full hierarchy.

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 gives usage context via the depth parameter and a performance warning ('loads all docs — may be slow on large workspaces'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_children or list_docs. The warning implies cautious use but lacks direct comparison to siblings.

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