treeflow_list_leafs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys the core behavior (listing leaf nodes within a branch) and implicitly that it is a read-only operation, but does not disclose whether it returns direct descendants only or all nested leaves, nor any error behavior or response format.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes meaning, clearly stating the action, object, and scope.

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?

Given the low complexity of a one-parameter list operation, the description covers the essential purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about the return shape and whether nested leaves are included, leaving a moderate information gap for the agent.

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% since branch_id has a description ('ID de la rama'). The tool description does not add details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('nodos (leafs)') scoped to a branch ('dentro de una rama específica del canvas'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list tools like treeflow_list_branches and treeflow_list_trees by naming the leafs and branch 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?

Usage is implied: call when you need the leaf nodes of a specific branch. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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