get_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves a tree; it does not mention return format, behavior when the tree is not found, whether the result includes nested children, or any side-effect-free guarantee beyond the meaning of 'Get'.

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 a single, economical sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and the key qualifier 'by ID' is front-loaded.

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?

Despite the low parameter count, the lack of an output schema and the large number of sibling tree-related tools make the description incomplete. An agent cannot tell what 'a tree' means here versus get_tree_structure or list_trees, and the return value is not described.

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 100% and the treeId parameter is already described as 'The ID of the tree to retrieve'. The description merely restates this in prose and adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a tree') with a scoping qualifier ('by ID'), which is specific and unambiguous as a retrieval operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_tree_structure or list_trees, so it is not fully differentiated.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_tree_structure, get_tree_stats, or list_trees. No exclusions, alternatives, or contextual conditions are mentioned.

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