tc_folder_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints; description adds rich context: recursive walking, breadth-limits by max_depth and max_entries, truncation reporting, and what the output contains (folder IDs, file sizes, dates). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured: opening verb phrase, then brief behavioral summary, then Args/Returns sections. Each sentence carries necessary information and there is no redundancy. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 is self-contained: explains purpose, back-off behavior, return format, and truncation. With an output schema present, it could have omitted return details, but including them adds value. Sibling tools are also referenced for further actions.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully with an Args section explaining each parameter, including defaults (folder_id default root, max_depth default 3, max_entries default 400) and constraints (1-6 depth). This goes beyond the schema's bare property names.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Render a compact text tree of the project's folder structure.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like tc_list_folder by emphasizing the tree view and even references tc_list_folder for drilling in.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'ideal for a quick overview of a CDE structure before drilling in.' Also notes how to drill into subtrees via tc_list_folder / tc_folder_tree, giving an alternative and follow-on usage.

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