Codebase Directory Tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: directories nest as children, files report a size, and the tree is depth- and item-capped to bound the response. That truncation disclosure is genuinely valuable, but there is no mention of permissions, error behavior for a missing module, or how the caps are applied.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavior, then bounding. No wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the capping behavior is covered. The remaining gap is the single undocumented parameter, which is the one thing an agent must supply correctly to call this tool.

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?

One parameter ('module') with 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Saying 'a local module's directory structure' hints that 'module' is the module of interest, but it never clarifies the expected format (machine name vs. path) or scope.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Show a local module's directory structure as a nested tree.' The scope (local module) is clear and the output shape is named. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many codebase_* siblings such as codebase_paths_list or codebase_files_list, which touch similar territory.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent choosing between this, codebase_files_list, and codebase_paths_list gets no routing help from the description.

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