prune_tree

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says thoughts below a threshold will be pruned, but it does not disclose whether pruning is irreversible, whether it affects descendant thoughts or whole subtrees, whether thresholds are inclusive/exclusive, or whether any permission is needed. 'Prune' implies destructive behavior, but the scope and side effects are unclear.

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 concise sentence with no fluff or repetition. It front-loades the core action and threshold condition. However, it is so terse that it omits behavioral context that would make it easier to use.

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?

Even though the schema documents all parameters, the tool has no annotations and no output schema. A destructive operation like pruning needs more context: does it remove thoughts permanently, does it cascade to children, what does it return, and can it be reversed. The description is not complete enough for an agent to safely call this tool without uncertainty.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters at 100% with descriptions for treeId, threshold, and riskThreshold. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond 'optionally by risk threshold', which merely restates the optional parameter. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('prune') and identifies the resource ('thoughts') with the criteria (evaluation threshold, optional risk threshold). It is distinct from siblings like delete_tree, clear_tree, and backtrack, though it does not name them. The phrase 'a certain evaluation threshold' is slightly vague but understandable.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_tree, backtrack, or clear_tree. The description implies pruning thoughts below a threshold but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or cases where a different tool should be chosen.

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