analyze_folder_structure

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description exceeds this by disclosing the recursive behavior, the effect of max_depth and max_entries limits, and the truncation flag in the response. This is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations convey, although it does not detail error handling or performance expectations.

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 well-structured with a usage-oriented introduction followed by explicit Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the purpose and usage guidance, then gets into parameters. It is efficient and not bloated, though the Korean text is slightly verbose in listing parameter behaviors already present in the schema.

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 tool with an output schema, the description does not need to explain return types in detail; it still summarizes the key fields (tree_text, extension_stats, truncated). It also covers the main execution limit (truncation) and instructs the agent on the next step. Missing any explicit error-handling or prerequisites, but given the annotations and schema, this is adequately complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description restates these meanings with slightly more operational context (e.g., '트리 최대 깊이 (기본 5)' vs the schema's '트리를 내려갈 최대 깊이'). No additional syntax or format details are added. Per guidelines, baseline is 3, and the description does not meaningfully exceed that 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 uses a specific verb ('recursively scans') and resource ('folder'), and clearly states the output (tree and per-extension statistics). It also frames itself as the starting point for file analysis, which distinguishes it from the sibling read_* tools that operate on individual files. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately scoped.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool ('starting point for file analysis') and how to proceed afterward: 'after first grasping folder scale, use list_supported_files to extract only actually readable files.' This routes the agent to the correct sibling for follow-up, providing clear when-to-use guidance and a named alternative.

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