Show directory tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' line adds no new safety info. It does add the recursion-depth behavior and the note that output is 'as exposed by the NAS API', which is mild context, but nothing about pagination, error cases, or the exact structure. With annotations covering the key safety trait, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight: a one-sentence purpose, a short usage note, a brief behavioral note, and a clear alternative line. Every sentence earns its place, and the key distinguishing information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tree tool with two simple parameters and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and the key recursion behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both 'path' and 'depth' are already documented with defaults and descriptions. The description repeats 'depth caps recursion (default 2)' but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'a nested tree view of a directory on the ZSpace NAS', and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings (zspace_ls and zspace_search). This gives an agent an unambiguous mental model of what the tool does and how it differs.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('to understand overall folder structure before deep operations') and provides clear exclusions and alternatives ('use zspace_ls for a single level with sizes, or zspace_search when you are looking for a name rather than a layout'). No inference needed.

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