lore_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'list' (implying a read operation) but omits details like whether it returns the full tree or immediate children, ordering, or error handling (e.g., if the project does not exist). For a simple tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the main action. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite low complexity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description lacks key information: default behavior (lists root tree?), return format, error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. It is too minimal to fully inform an agent's decision.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds 'Optionally scope by parent node or kind', which parallels the schema descriptions but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already offers.

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 tool lists a folder/doc tree for a project, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('tree'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lore_search or lore_projects by focusing on the hierarchical structure.

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 optional scoping by parent node or kind, giving basic usage context. However, it provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives (e.g., lore_search for text search) and lacks examples or prerequisites.

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