get_tree_overview

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real behavior: four independent budgets, the fact that the byte budget excludes continuation data, and that truncation surfaces depth-limited nodes separately. It still doesn't say what happens to omitted placementId (implied roots) or how includeArchived interacts with traversal.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the traversal scope before the mechanics. The jargon ("item-byte", "additional bounded navigation data") is dense but each sentence carries distinct information.

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 7-parameter tool with a nested continuation object and no output schema, the description covers budget/pagination semantics but omits the archived-node flag, the roots-vs-placement default, and what a returned item looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps conceptually onto maxNodes, maxDepth, maxBytes, maxRequests and continuation, but leaves includeArchived and placementId (roots-when-absent) unexplained, and does not clarify the nested continuation payload's fields.

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 action (bounded recursive traversal of roots or a placement's descendants) and the resource (tree nodes). It is clear about scope and budget-limited expansion, but never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like get_tree_subtree, list_tree_children, or list_tree_roots.

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 operational guidance for continuing a traversal ("Pass returned continuation to continue") and notes that depth-limited nodes are listed separately. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over the several overlapping subtree/children/roots tools, leaving selection to inference.

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