mesh_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds that the tool returns 'tree numbers' and 'hierarchical path', which is consistent but does not reveal additional behavioral traits like pagination or error handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise: two short paragraphs with a bulleted list. Every sentence adds value, and the key action is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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?

There is an output schema (context signal indicates its presence), so the description does not need to detail return values. It explains the concept of MeSH tree numbers, which is sufficient for understanding the tool's output. Minor gap: could mention that a descriptor may have multiple tree positions, but not essential.

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 100%, and the parameter description ('MeSH Descriptor ID (e.g., D015242, D003920)') is already present in the schema. The description merely restates this with the same examples, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('tree hierarchy location(s) for a MeSH descriptor'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like mesh_descriptor or mesh_search. It also gives concrete examples of what the tool reveals (broader/narrower relationships, related terms).

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 lists three use cases ('See where a term fits..., Understand broader/narrower..., Find related terms...'), making it clear when to choose this tool over siblings. The hierarchical path example further clarifies the context.

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