Folder analysis

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations by disclosing that dependency folders like node_modules and .venv are skipped by default, which is a key behavioral trait an agent must know.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core output and then states the important default behavior, making it easy for an agent to grasp quickly.

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 value details are covered elsewhere. However, the description omits usage guidance and details about max_depth/max_items semantics, so an agent may not know how to tune the analysis. It is adequate for default usage but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only clarifies skip_dependency_dirs by giving examples of dependency folders; path, max_depth, and max_items are left entirely to inference from their names and defaults.

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 what the tool does: produces a folder breakdown by file extension (count/size/%) plus a structure tree. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like files_read_file and files_find_files, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or use a crisp imperative verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as files_find_files or files_read_file. The note about skipping dependency folders hints at behavior, but it does not explain use cases, exclusions, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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