webdav_get_directory_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output format (JSON structure) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, recursion depth, error handling, or performance implications. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for a tool that interacts with a filesystem.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints on path or excludePatterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('recursive tree view of files and directories'), specifying it returns a JSON structure. It distinguishes from siblings like webdav_list_remote_directory by emphasizing recursion and tree structure, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over webdav_list_remote_directory or webdav_list_directory_with_sizes, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context implied.

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