Get Children

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it reads from the 'local graph index' and does not recompute semantic classification. This gives the agent a clearer model of what side effects, if any, to expect.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place by adding scope, usage guidance, or behavioral caveat.

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 simple read-only traversal tool with one well-documented parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how to invoke it conceptually, what it does not do, and how it relates to its sibling. No output schema exists, but the return concept is clearly stated.

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%, with the single path parameter already documented as 'Relative path from OBSIDIAN_ROOT'. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries the necessary semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the exact operation ('Traverse the hierarchy downward'), the resource ('one note'), and the result ('all direct and transitive child note paths'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling get_parents, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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?

It gives an explicit use case ('what does this topic/module contain?') and explicitly routes to get_parents for the opposite direction. It also notes that it does not recompute semantic classification, which helps avoid misuse.

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