dir_tree

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format ('visual directory tree') and configurability, but does not state side effects, permissions, performance implications, or error handling. It does not clarify that this is a read-only operation, which is a notable omission without annotation support.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Generate a visual directory tree structure') and then immediately provides the key capabilities. There is zero unnecessary verbosity, making it easy for an agent to grasp quickly.

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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains what it does but omits details like the exact format of the output (e.g., ASCII art, indentation), whether it follows symlinks, or how it handles permission issues. These are minor for a tree tool, but with no annotations to fill the gaps, it remains at a middle score.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), setting a baseline of 3. The description adds a little context by mentioning 'configurable depth and ignore patterns', which maps to max_depth and ignore_patterns, but it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not compensate for any gaps, so it stays at baseline.

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 function: generate a visual directory tree structure, and it names the analogous `tree` command. It specifies the verb ('Generate') and resource ('directory tree structure') and mentions configurable depth and ignore patterns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_search or file_stats. The description only says what it does, not the context in which it is preferred or when it should be avoided. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, offering no decision support.

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