GetPackageTree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a hierarchical tree but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authorization requirements, error handling (e.g., if package doesn't exist), or performance implications of depth parameters.

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 very concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It could be slightly more concise by removing 'complete' but overall it's efficient and to the point.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves out important details about parameter behavior (e.g., what max_depth=5 means, how include_subpackages affects the tree, what difference debug makes). The output format is vague without examples.

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 100%, so by baseline it receives a 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to parameters beyond what is in the schema; it only describes the output.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'complete package tree structure including subpackages and objects', distinguishing it from sibling tools like GetPackage or GetPackageContents. It specifies the output as a hierarchical tree with object names, types, and descriptions.

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 by the tool's name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like GetPackageContents or GetObjectStructure. No information is provided about prerequisites or when not to use.

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