studio_get_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it modifies nothing, what the returned tree looks like, how truncation/limits behave, or what happens with invalid roots. This is a meaningful gap for a hierarchy inspection tool.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then mentions configurability. No words are wasted, and the example roots add immediate practical value without bloating the text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it never does. It also omits any statement about read-only behavior or default output structure. Given the optional parameters and no required inputs, an agent has to infer expected results and usage context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage and documents all five parameters, including defaults and examples. The description adds only the general notion of 'configurable depth and filtering,' which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific operation (inspect the Roblox DataModel hierarchy tree) and a particular resource (hierarchy starting from a root instance), with examples like Workspace and ServerScriptService. It is distinct from property/attribute tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like studio_inspect or studio_search.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as studio_inspect, studio_search, or property_get_all. It states what the tool does but not the conditions under which it should be preferred, nor any exclusion criteria.

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