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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds what data is returned (paths and byte sizes) but does not describe the structure of the file tree (e.g., hierarchy, recursion, inclusion of directories). No side effects are relevant, but more detail on the exact output shape would be helpful.

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?

A single, clear sentence that includes the verb, resource, and output specifics. No filler, front-loaded with the key action and result. Highly efficient for a simple getter.

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 getter with a single parameter and full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'file tree' means (full recursive structure vs. top-level listing) and does not clarify how it relates to read_app_files. Given the presence of sibling tools, a bit more context on the intended use would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% (app_id described as 'The app ID'), so the schema already handles parameter documentation. The description adds no extra meaning about app_id beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('file tree for an app'), and the data returned ('paths and byte sizes'). This is clear and distinguishes it from tools like get_app_detail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling read_app_files, which could be confused as similar in 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The sibling list includes read_app_files and read_app_file, but the description does not clarify whether this is the right choice for listing file metadata vs. reading content. No exclusions or alternative routing provided.

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