get_directory_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds little beyond that: it says 'Get directory tree structure' but does not disclose behavior like whether symlinks are followed, whether hidden files are included, or how max_depth affects traversal.

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 sentence with no filler, and the main action and resource are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it attempts to convey.

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 tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, this description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the output looks like, what max_depth means in practice, whether the output includes files or only directories, or what constraints apply to path. The annotations cover safety but not the operational details needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'Path' and 'max_depth' are somewhat self-explanatory names, but the description does not clarify that max_depth counts tree levels, whether path must be a directory, or what values are valid. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 names a specific resource ('directory tree structure') and a clear verb ('Get'), and it adds a navigation purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_files or search_files, but 'tree structure' strongly implies a recursive view rather than a flat listing.

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 phrase 'for folder navigation' gives only a vague sense of when to use it. There is no guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools such as list_files, search_files, or get_disk_usage, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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