project_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that nothing is saved to disk and that the path is relative to the workspace root, which are meaningful traits. However, it does not address error behavior, hidden files, or symlink following, keeping it at an adequate but not exhaustive level.

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 two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the action and object, followed by a compact Args block. Every clause carries information (ASCII tree, not saved, relative path), and there is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, side-effect, and path semantics. It lacks explicit alternative guidance, but the 'not saved to disk' note partially clarifies its role among siblings. Overall, it is nearly complete for its simplicity.

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 input schema provides only a string type and default for 'path' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that path is the 'Directory to render, relative to the workspace root,' adding important semantics about location and interpretation. With a single parameter, this fully covers the parameter.

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 uses the verb 'Render' and identifies the resource: 'a visual ASCII tree of a directory's contents.' It is specific about the output format and scope, and the parenthetical 'not saved to disk' helps distinguish it from generators like generate_project_tree.

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 implied rather than explicit: the description says the tree is 'not saved to disk,' which suggests this is for quick in-memory viewing. However, it does not name alternatives or say when to choose this over generate_project_tree or list_directory, so it stops short of clear guidance.

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