mesh_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this by describing only read operations (get, see, understand). It adds context about MeSH tree numbers (e.g., example), but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth are needed given the safe nature.

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 three short bullet-like paragraphs, all relevant and front-loaded with the main action. No fluff or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, with output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and what output to expect (tree hierarchy, relationships). No gaps remain.

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%: the sole parameter mesh_id has a pattern and description. The description's example of tree numbers refers to output, not parameter meaning. It adds no new semantics beyond schema, so baseline 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 clearly states it retrieves tree hierarchy locations for a MeSH descriptor, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. The use cases distinguish it from siblings like mesh_descriptor (which likely returns descriptor details) and mesh_search (for searching), ensuring no 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?

The description explicitly lists three use cases (see hierarchy, understand relationships, find related terms), setting context. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the use cases provide implicit guidance relative to sibling tools.

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