list_trees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all trees' only restates the operation implied by the name and does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, how scope is determined, or any side effects. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, leaving important context about scope and output to be inferred.

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 having zero parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent trying to select the correct tool. It does not clarify whether 'all trees' means all trees in the current session, all trees across all sessions, or all trees within a strategy, and it does not describe the return format. Sibling tools with more specific names highlight the ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline score of 4 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List all trees'. It distinguishes scope as 'all', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_trees_by_strategy or list_trees_by_session, so the distinction is left to the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools with similar names and overlapping purposes, the description should explain when 'list_trees' is the right choice (e.g., listing across all sessions or strategies) versus list_trees_by_strategy or list_trees_by_session.

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