auto_expand

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool generates child nodes, returns their IDs, operates only one level deep, and requires manual submission of each child. It does not mention authentication or error states, but covers key behavioral aspects adequately.

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 two sentences long, highly concise, and front-loads the main action followed by a critical constraint. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview. It explains the core action, depth limit, and necessary follow-up actions. The 'direction' parameter could be elaborated, but overall it's adequately complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so by guidelines baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it leaves parameter explanations to the schema.

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 generates follow-up prompts as queued child nodes and returns their IDs, using specific verbs and resources. It differentiates from siblings like 'create_node' or 'submit_node' by focusing on automated generation.

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 explicitly notes 'One level only; submit each child yourself,' providing clear context on how to use the tool. It implies the agent should not expect recursion and must handle child nodes, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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