xae_tree_get

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: the ChildCount quirk (children are walked even though the node reports no ChildCount) and that xml=true triggers ProduceXml. That quirk disclosure is valuable and goes beyond structured data; it stops short of describing pagination/truncation behavior tied to max_items.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then dense supporting detail on path syntax and root shortcuts. The root list is long but each entry (code + human name) earns its place as directly callable navigation anchors; there is no filler.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies path grammar, roots, and the ChildCount quirk, making it largely self-sufficient; only max_items semantics and any truncation behavior remain unaddressed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning and it partially does: path (with syntax and example), depth ('children to `depth`'), and xml (Produces ProduceXml). max_items is never explained despite a 2000 default, leaving one of four parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('System Manager tree item: properties, children to `depth`, ProduceXml when xml=true'), so an agent knows it retrieves a node's properties and subtree. It references the sibling xae_plc_projects as the source of the '<Name> Project' path, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from xae_tree_consume_xml or xae_tree_set_values.

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?

Provides strong path-construction guidance (concrete example path, the xae_plc_projects linkage, and the full list of root shortcuts), which implies how to use the tool. However, it never states when to prefer this over the other tree tools (consume_xml, set_values, create_child) or any exclusions, so usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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