File Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-mutating read. The description adds the behavioral detail that blocked paths are excluded from results, which does not contradict the annotations. It does not mention truncation at max_depth/max_entries or error behavior, but the annotation safety profile keeps the burden low.

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?

A single 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object and contains no filler. Every word 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?

For a simple read-only tool with zero required parameters and default values documented in the schema, the description plus schema plus annotations covers what it lists, what it excludes, and its safety profile. The only gap is that no output schema exists, so return-format expectations rest on 'List files and directories,' which is adequate for this tool's simplicity.

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 defaults documented for all five optional parameters (path, max_depth, max_entries, workspace_id, include_hidden). The description repeats nothing from the schema and adds no parameter-level semantics of its own, which is acceptable at baseline because the schema carries the load.

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 states the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'files and directories inside the workspace,' and adds a scoping constraint ('excluding blocked paths'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search or read by its action and resource, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

No sentence advises when to use tree instead of search, read, or workspace. For an agent deciding how to explore a workspace, the description provides no routing signal; the difference between listing the tree and searching file contents must be inferred from tool names alone.

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