project_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 behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that the operation is read-only and that hidden and common dependency directories are skipped by default. It does not detail error behavior or edge cases, but the key behavioral traits are clearly disclosed.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement is followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given three optional parameters and an output schema, the description provides all necessary calling context: purpose, defaults, valid value ranges, and behavioral notes. An agent can correctly invoke the tool without needing additional documentation.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions, but the tool description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: path with default and absolute-path support, max_depth with a 1-4 range, and skip_hidden with its filtering behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's function: listing a directory's file tree in read-only mode. It also specifies default skip behavior for common directories like .venv/.git/__pycache__, making it distinct from the sibling tools, none of which serve this purpose.

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 intended use case is implied by the description—call this tool when you need a read-only file tree of a directory. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares with alternatives, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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