Browse hierarchy

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

Annotations establish readOnly/idempotent/not-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds genuinely unexpected behavior an agent would never guess: the ~120 hidden root services, the fact that omitting path lists only authored containers, the hidden-services count appearing in the response, and the flat-over-nested design rationale. This is exactly the kind of domain gotcha the description is the only place to surface.

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?

Three tight paragraphs with a clear job each: what it returns, when to use it, and the root/path edge behavior. The hidden-services admission—a place where most tools would hide a bug—earns its place in the final sentence. Everything is front-loaded (purpose first), with zero filler or ceremonial language.

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?

For a read-only discovery tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and 0 required parameters, the description covers every decision point an agent faces: what the response shape is, what surprising root behavior exists, how to avoid the find/tree ambiguity, and how cost scales with depth. The pagination and filter params are fully documented in the schema where they belong. The only thing an agent might want to know—the actual return shape—is explained ('flat array of paths'), and the response hint about the hidden-services count is disclosed. Nothing material is missing.

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?

At 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the cost model of `depth` and `detail` in prose, but that's complementary to, not a replacement for, the schema's work. No meaningful gap to compensate for.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists the instance hierarchy under a path') plus the exact algorithm ('breadth-first to a given depth') and return type ('flat array of paths'). The explicit contrast with the sibling 'find' — 'Use `find` instead when you already know what you are looking for' — provides exactly the sibling differentiation the rubric rewards.

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?

States when to use it ('orient yourself in an unfamiliar place'), when not to use it ('when you already know what you are looking for'), names the alternative explicitly ('use `find` instead'), and gives a cost rationale for the boundary ('wastes context on instances you will never touch'). Textbook when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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