list_tree_bindings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by spelling out the return shape (count plus indexed bindings) and the meaning of source_id/target_id as struct GUIDs of the two ends — useful semantics not present in any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the sibling routing follows immediately. Minor redundancy: the binding shape is stated once inline and then restated in a 'Returns:' line, which wastes a few tokens but is not harmful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract, which it does via the explicit 'Returns: { tree_path, count, bindings: [...] }' shape. Complete enough for an agent to call and parse the result; only pagination/scale behavior for large trees is unaddressed.

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?

Only one parameter (tree_path) with 100% schema description coverage including an example path, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at the baseline when 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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (property bindings in StateTree editor data) and scope (without changing it). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutation tools like add_state_tree_binding and remove_tree_binding, which it explicitly names.

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 description routes the agent to the complementary siblings: bindings are added with add_state_tree_binding and removed with remove_tree_binding, implying this is the read counterpart. There is no explicit 'when not to use' clause, but the read-only framing plus named alternatives gives clear context.

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