list_children

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

The description explicitly mentions the optional recursive behavior, which is a key behavioral trait. However, since no annotations are provided, the description does not disclose anything about return format, error handling, or whether 'children' means direct children only, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 entire description is a single eight-word sentence, with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 simple two-parameter list operation, the description covers the core action and both parameters. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return value shape, and it lacks any usage context or error behavior, leaving some gaps for a not-so-obvious 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?

The description maps the 'path' parameter to the node whose children are listed and 'recursive' to the optional recursion, adding meaning beyond the bare schema property names. However, it does not provide details about path syntax or the exact effect of recursion beyond the boolean flag.

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 'List' and a clear resource 'children of a node', with the optional recursive flag. It clearly communicates what the tool does and is distinct from sibling tools like list_materials or layout_children.

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 such as layout_children or list_materials, nor are any exclusions given. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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