Drill into the call tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It clearly discloses behavioral traits: pruning (children below minPercent dropped), depth capping, and the effect of rootPath. This is comprehensive for a read-only exploration tool.

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 two sentences long, with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose and pruning behavior, then explains the rootPath parameter. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the core behavior (pruning, depth capping) and the special rootPath parameter. It does not describe return values, but that is acceptable given no output schema. The description is complete enough for an AI agent to understand how to invoke the tool.

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 80%, indicating most parameters are explained in the schema. The description adds value by explaining 'rootPath' usage with an example. This adds meaning beyond the schema's description of 'Descend into this frame path first'.

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 purpose: 'Pruned call tree for a thread.' The verb 'Drill into' and resource 'call tree' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_call_tree' by describing a different operation (drilling vs searching).

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?

The description provides guidance on using 'rootPath' to descend into a subtree, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like 'search_call_tree'. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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