list_children

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose important behavior: recursive subtree traversal up to max_depth, compact output shape, and server-side relay. However, it omits pagination/cursor behavior, the meaning of non-compact output, error handling, and any read-only safety guarantees.

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 short and front-loaded with actionable usage details. The first two sentences are concise and valuable. The final sentence about 'PR 6' and server-side relay is internal noise that does not help an agent invoke the tool, so it loses the top score.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves material gaps: pagination via limit/cursor, the max_nodes safety cap, the full non-compact return format, and default behavior when node_path is invalid are all unexplained. The description covers core semantics but is not complete enough for correct advanced usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to node_path, recursive, max_depth, and compact, but completely ignores limit, cursor, and max_nodes. This is partial compensation for a 7-parameter tool.

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 action: 'List the children of node_path.' It names a specific resource (children of a node path) and distinguishes itself from sibling list_* tools by targeting node hierarchy children rather than node types, panes, or channels.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need the children of a given node path. However, there is no explicit mention of when to choose this over alternatives like find_nodes or get_node_info, nor are any exclusions or prerequisite conditions provided.

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