ads_leaves

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

Annotations already declare a safe read operation, but the description adds real behavioral context: values are read in bounded pieces, non-expanded values return only their head, and value_note explains missing/partial values. This is useful detail beyond what readOnlyHint conveys.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the sentence is dense with nested parentheses and embedded examples that make it harder to parse than necessary. Acceptable size, but structure could be cleaner.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description does cover the with_values/value_note behavior. But with 0% parameter coverage it leaves name and max_leaves undocumented, so it is not fully complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only addresses with_values behavior and references the output field value_note. The name parameter's addressing semantics and max_leaves (the bound that triggers 'not expanded' behavior) are left unexplained.

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 gives a specific verb ("Enumerate") and resource ("every scalar leaf under a symbol with byte offsets") and illustrates it with concrete examples ('MAIN', 'MAIN.arrSteps'). The leaf-enumeration concept differentiates it from sibling reads like ads_read or ads_list_symbols, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It implies when to use the tool (enumerate leaves; set values=true to get decoded values), which maps to a plausible workflow. However it never states when to prefer this over ads_read, ads_read_many, or ads_symbol_info, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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