get_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral details: the tool returns a tree with fork points, branch summaries, compaction boundaries, and leaf nodes, and session_id accepts a UUID or prefix. While it does not explicitly state it is read-only, the 'get' verb and structural focus strongly imply a safe, non-mutating operation.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with a clear purpose sentence, adds relevant details, includes usage guidance, and lists parameters in a clean format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool shows, when to use it, and clarifies each parameter. The mention of 'before navigating with get_thread or get_forks' provides necessary context within the sibling toolset, and the output schema presumably covers return value structure.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully explains both parameters: 'session_id: Session UUID (or prefix)' and 'project: Optional project slug to narrow lookup.' This adds crucial format and purpose information beyond the schema, compensating entirely for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the conversation tree structure for a session.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing what it shows (fork points, branch summaries, compaction boundaries, leaf nodes) and explicitly references get_thread and get_forks as navigation tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to understand the structure before navigating with get_thread or get_forks.' This states when to use (before navigating) and names the alternative tools, making the decision boundary clear.

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