Directory Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by detailing the output shape (name/type/children, empty children arrays for files vs directories) and the constraint that it only works within allowed directories.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the structural detail follows logically with no filler. It runs a bit long on output-format specifics that the output schema already covers, but every sentence is informative.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it does so adequately. However it omits any explanation of excludePatterns and gives no usage guidance relative to the many sibling listing/search tools, leaving gaps for a 2-parameter tool.

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% for both parameters. The description never mentions 'path' or 'excludePatterns' — the latter is a non-obvious optional filter whose semantics (glob? regex? relative paths?) are undocumented anywhere. Only the 'allowed directories' constraint hints at path behavior.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get a recursive tree view of files and directories') and states it returns a JSON structure. The 'recursive' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from non-recursive siblings like list_directory, but it never names that alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'recursive' suggests this is the tool to reach for when a full subtree is needed versus list_directory or get_file_info, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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