get_react_tree

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

Adds a useful version constraint (React 16+) and indicates output includes props and state. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. With no annotations, these details are largely missing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and a brief compatibility note. No redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a version note. However, it omits usage guidance and any indication of what the returned tree structure looks like, which is a meaningful gap given the presence of many closely related sibling tools.

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 schema covers the only parameter ('depth') with a description and default value. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies given full schema coverage.

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 tool retrieves the React component tree including props and state, specifying the resource and verb. It differentiates from siblings like get_component_state by focusing on the full tree, but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or the tree's hierarchical scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many similar siblings (e.g., find_component, get_component_state). The description states what it does but not the context or selection criteria.

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