get_pathway_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the response is a flat list requiring client-side assembly via parentId, and the data includes canonicalPathwayId fields. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the output, the second explains assembly, and the third gives the primary use case. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler or verbose phrasing.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: it indicates the output is a flat node list, explains how to reconstruct the tree (via parentId), and clarifies the intended purpose (mapping canonicalPathwayId to names). Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add anything. No redundancy or missing information exists to penalize.

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 the tool returns 'the full pathway scaffold as a flat node list', specifying both the resource (pathway scaffold) and the form (flat node list). It also mentions the key field (parentId) and a distinct use case (resolving canonicalPathwayId), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like get_pathway or get_highlights.

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 gives a concrete use case: 'Use this to resolve the canonicalPathwayId values returned on interactions into human-readable pathway names.' This clearly tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specific purpose effectively implies it is for tree/name resolution rather than other pathway operations.

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