Directory Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: output structure (children arrays for directories, empty arrays for empty dirs), 2-space indentation formatting, and the allowed directories restriction. This supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the purpose, then details output format. Every sentence provides value, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description adequately explains the return structure. However, it lacks guidance on how to use the 'excludePatterns' parameter, which is essential for filtering. This gap reduces completeness for a tool with two parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'path' parameter (implied) or the 'excludePatterns' parameter at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as a 'recursive tree view of files and directories.' It describes the JSON output structure with 'name', 'type', and 'children' for directories, distinguishing it from flat list tools like list_directory or search_files.

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 mentions that the tool 'Only works within allowed directories,' which implies a constraint, but it does not explicitly state when to use a tree view versus flat listing or file search. There is no guidance on alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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