treeflow_list_trees

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the operation is a read-only listing of available items in the current workspace, which is useful. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or error behavior, but for a simple list tool this is only a moderate gap.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no filler. The action ('Lista'), object ('todos los bots (árboles)'), and scope ('espacio de trabajo actual') are all front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: it names the resource and workspace scope. Missing details like the exact return structure are minor for a no-input list operation, but would push it to full completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage and the description does not need to explain inputs. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the operation rather than parameters.

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 and resource: 'Lista todos los bots (árboles)', clarifying that 'árboles' means bots. It also scopes the operation to the current Treeflow workspace, which distinguishes it from other list tools for branches, leafs, intents, etc.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool by naming the resource (trees/bots) and workspace scope, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when to choose this over sibling list tools. Usage is inferable rather than clearly guided.

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