pob_get_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the payload is geometry-only (coordinates, links, selected nodes) with no image or formula data, but says nothing about payload size, pagination, or what 'selected nodes' means.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the content shape comes first and the exclusion note second. Nothing is padded, though the cryptic wording slightly reduces information density.

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 getter with no output schema, the description conveys the general content shape but leaves the single parameter undocumented and the return structure only loosely sketched. It is minimally adequate, not complete.

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?

There is one parameter, includeScene, with 0% schema description coverage and no mention anywhere in the description. The agent has no way to know what scene inclusion toggles or how it changes the returned geometry.

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 states a concrete resource and its shape: 'compact geometry of the actual Lua tree: coordinates, connections and selected nodes'. It also distinguishes itself from render-oriented siblings by excluding PNG and in-game formulas, though the phrase 'настоящего дерева Lua' is slightly opaque.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'without PNG and in-game formulas' suggests it is the data-only alternative to pob_render_image, pob_tree_icons, or pob_tree_textures. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is named.

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