gh_data_tree_get

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the output is a DataTree (list of branches), which clarifies the return format. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations already convey, and the added value is modest.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. However, it sacrifices essential detail; it could be more informative while remaining compact. The structure is simple but not optimized for quick understanding of key points.

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 that there is an output schema (present but not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks critical contextual information: parameter explanations, error conditions, and how to identify the component. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the parameters. The tool description does not explain what 'component_id' or 'output' mean, nor how they map to component outputs. An agent would have to infer from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 'Read' and the resource 'component output', indicating a read operation on a Grasshopper component. It specifies the output format as DataTree (list of branches). While it distinguishes from write tools like gh_data_tree_set by emphasizing reading, it does not explicitly differentiate from the batch variant gh_data_tree_get_batch, though the name partly conveys that it is for a single component.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gh_data_tree_get_batch. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., component must exist) or context for use. An agent would not know if this tool is appropriate for a given scenario.

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