innoslate_document_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the shape of the result: ordered contents with depth, text, labels and trace links, which tells the agent what effort/volume to expect.

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?

Two compact sentences with the return content front-loaded and the parameter hint second. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence could be fused more tightly.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the return structure and the key identifier format. It falls short on the full_text, max_depth and project_url parameters and any limits, so it is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does document the required 'document' parameter thoroughly (id, number like 'UN.1', or exact name), and 'depth'/'text' loosely map to max_depth and full_text, but project_url is entirely undocumented in both places.

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 what the tool returns, a complete in-order document tree with depth, text, labels and trace links, which is a specific and recognizable resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself against siblings like innoslate_get or innoslate_read_workspace, but the 'everything inside a document' framing is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the right tool for retrieving a whole document rather than a single node or workspace.

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