treeflow_get_tree_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the read-only nature through 'Obtiene' and notes the aggregate behavior of one call returning complete data. However, it doesn't disclose potential payload size, exact return structure, latency implications, or any authorization requirements, which would be valuable for an unannotated 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 a concise single sentence with the key benefit front-loaded ('estructura COMPLETA ... en un solo llamado') followed by a parenthetical list of included components. The 'Ideal para...' phrase is slightly redundant but adds a useful usage cue.

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 description adequately conveys what will be returned and when to use it. But without an output schema or annotations, it should provide more explicit return-shape or caveats, such as whether the full structure is paginated or potentially very large. It is sufficient for tool selection but not fully complete for response handling.

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 100%, with tree_id documented as 'ID del bot/árbol'. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 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?

States the verb 'Obtiene', the resource 'estructura COMPLETA del bot', and the scope: basic info, all branches, nodes, intents, entities, and message templates. The phrase 'en un solo llamado' and 'todo el bot de una vez' clearly distinguish it from the list_* siblings that cover single resource types, and emphasize its completeness relative to a basic get_tree.

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?

'Ideal para entender todo el bot de una vez' provides a clear when-to-use signal: when the agent wants the full bot structure in a single call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for routing.

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