get_mindmap

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: large response size (>2 MB), structure of returned data (metadata + nodes array), and node fields. It warns about performance implications. Lacks explicit read-only hint but 'Read' implies idempotence, which is sufficient.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, a warning block, bulleted use cases, and an Args section. It is concise—every sentence adds value without 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 read tool with one parameter and an output schema (indicated by context), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, parameter meaning, and return format. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 only parameter id_mindmap is explained as 'Mindmap ID' in the Args section. While the schema defines it as integer with title, the description adds context that it is the identifier for the mindmap. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is effective but minimal.

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 starts with 'Read a mindmap (full metadata + all nodes).' which provides a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_mindmap_summary and inject_directory_to_mindmap by warning against using it for verification, and lists typical use cases that further clarify its unique role.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use it: 'Do NOT use it to verify a previous inject_directory_to_mindmap or replace_mindmap operation — those tools return a summary that is sufficient for validation.' Also provides typical use cases, giving clear guidance on appropriate contexts.

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