Get project directory tree

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

Annotations already indicate `readOnlyHint: true`, marking it as read-only. The description adds value by disclosing that generated, dependency, secret, and cache directories are excluded, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions detected.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose and key behavioral trait (exclusions). No unnecessary words or repetitions. Front-loaded with the action verb and resource.

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?

While the description covers essential exclusions, it lacks details about the output format or structure (e.g., returns paths vs. tree objects). Given the absence of an output schema, more context would be beneficial for an agent to use the tool effectively. Annotations partially cover safety but not completeness.

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% (path and project have descriptions; maxDepth and maxEntries do not). The tool description does not add any parameter information, failing to compensate for the undocumented parameters. With no additional parameter semantics, the description provides minimal help 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 inspects a project structure, with mention of excluded directories (generated, dependency, secret, cache). This differentiates it from sibling tools like `list_directory` which likely list all files without exclusions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so not a perfect 5.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this to inspect a project structure'), but lacks information on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives such as `list_directory`. The usage context is implied but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are stated.

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