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

The description explicitly labels the operation as 'read-only,' disclosing that it has no side effects. It also indicates behavior for the optional parameter (omit for overview). With no annotations provided, this disclosure covers the core behavioral transparency well, though it omits error handling or authorization details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and including only essential details. 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?

Without an output schema, the description lists the data elements included in the view and the two usage modes, providing adequate context. It doesn't address return format or edge cases, but for a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has no description for 'axis', but the description explains that providing it selects a single axis and omitting it returns all axes. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, even though it doesn't specify valid value formats or examples.

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 it is a 'read-only view of one axis' and specifies the contents (scaffold members, depth, neighbors, umbrella children). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like grid_dimension, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It provides usage context by explaining that omitting 'axis' yields an overview of all axes. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, making the usage implied rather than fully explicit.

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