list_tree_parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no note on whether it reflects unsaved edits, no mention of asset-modification state), but it does disclose the return shape, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler: the purpose comes first and the return shape second. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the return structure the agent needs ({ tree_path, count, parameters: [{ name, type, value_type }] }), which compensates well for a simple one-parameter read tool. Only the absence of any when-to-use note keeps it from being fully 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?

Only one parameter (tree_path) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's phrase 'declared on the tree' loosely reinforces what tree_path points at but adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 fits.

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) and resource (root parameter bag), and clarifies the scope as 'typed parameters declared on the tree', which pins it to the StateTree asset referenced by tree_path. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_state_tree_info or set_tree_parameter, so it stops 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_state_tree_info, set_tree_parameter, or remove_tree_parameter. Usage is only implied by the name and the read-only nature of the operation.

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