mesh_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about MeSH tree numbers and hierarchical paths, but does not significantly extend beyond what annotations provide.

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 two short paragraphs with no extraneous text. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by bullet points for usage and a brief explanation of tree numbers.

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 output schema, single parameter, and clear annotations, the description provides adequate context for using the tool correctly. It explains the hierarchical nature of MeSH and the meaning of tree numbers.

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%, meaning the input schema already fully describes the single parameter (mesh_id). The description does not add new information about the parameter beyond its existence.

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 'Get the tree hierarchy location(s) for a MeSH descriptor,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mesh_descriptor and mesh_search by focusing on hierarchical relationships.

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 use cases in a bulleted list, helping the agent understand when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide comparisons to siblings.

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