get_tree

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, or explain any side effects or restrictions. The analogy to MQTT Explorer hints at a non-destructive view but leaves uncertainty about behavior such as recursion depth, limits, or permission requirements.

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 concise sentence that is easy to read and front-loaded with the core concept. It avoids redundancy but is too terse to impart much guidance, making it efficient though not rich.

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 tool has three parameters and produces a tree structure, the description is inadequate. It does not describe the return format, how depth or limit affect results, or any ordering/pagination behavior, leaving many operational aspects ambiguous.

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 description only mentions 'Praefix' (prefix), which corresponds to one of the three parameters. It does not explain the semantics of 'limit' or 'tiefe' (depth), and the schema itself has zero descriptions, leaving these parameters insufficiently documented.

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 identifies the resource as a topic tree and the starting point (prefix). The MQTT Explorer analogy helps distinguish this as a hierarchical overview, differentiating from sibling tools like list_topics or get_last. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name for the action.

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 usage when an overview-like tree structure is needed ('der Ueberblick wie im MQTT Explorer'), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. No sibling tool is mentioned.

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