get_directory_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'get directory tree structure' without revealing specifics like recursion behavior, handling of hidden files, or that it is a read-only operation. The simplicity implies a safe read, but crucial behavioral details are omitted, so it earns a 2.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and to the point, making it easy to parse. For a tool with this level of simplicity, the length is appropriate and every word is necessary.

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?

While the tool has an output schema (which explains return values), the description omits crucial operational details such as how 'path' should be formatted, what 'max_depth' controls, and whether the result is recursive. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of behavioral context, so the description is incomplete for effective usage.

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%, yet the description does not mention the 'path' or 'max_depth' parameters at all. It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to infer meaning only from parameter names and defaults. This is a significant gap, so it scores a 1.

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 '获取坚果云目录树结构' translates to 'Get Nutstore directory tree structure', which clearly states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('directory tree'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_files by emphasizing the hierarchical 'tree' structure, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, warranting a 4.

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 list_files or get_file_info. The description simply states what it does without providing context on ideal use cases, such as 'use for recursive exploration' or 'avoid if you only need a flat listing'. This absence of usage direction results in a score of 2.

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