project-topology

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by framing the operation as a read-only 'snapshot' and by specifying that ignored directories are excluded. It does not mention side effects or authentication, but those are not significant concerns for a directory tree traversal tool.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no unnecessary content. It front-loads the main action and immediately communicates the root scope and exclusion behavior, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The description, combined with a complete input schema and an output schema, provides enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It clearly states the root, exclusion behavior, and optional parameters. It falls just short of complete because it does not offer any guidance on when this is preferable to sibling tools or mention potential traversal costs.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (path and maxDepth). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the structured schema handles parameter semantics completely.

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 uses a specific verb ('Produces') and resource ('directory tree snapshot'), and clearly defines the scope ('rooted at the project base') and key exclusion behavior ('excluding ignored directories'). This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like fs-reader or code-search, which serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use the tool—when a structural snapshot of the project is needed—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools such as fs-reader or code-search, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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