kaiten_get_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden — and it discloses meaningful behavior: the recursive nature with 'children' arrays, the entity types returned (spaces, documents, document groups), and the effect of root_uid and depth on traversal scope. It does not warn about potentially very large payloads when depth=0 (unlimited) on a big sidebar, and it never states this is a read-only operation, but the core runtime behavior is well conveyed.

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 sentences, zero fluff: purpose first, return-structure second, parameter hints third. Every sentence earns its place and the key distinction (recursive tree) is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 2-param, 0-required, 100%-schema-coverage tool, this is nearly complete: it covers the return shape (nested tree, children arrays, entity types) and both parameters' roles. The main gap is that with no output schema, the per-node shape beyond 'children' is underspecified. A brief caution about unlimited depth producing huge responses would also strengthen it, but this is close to complete for a read-style tree tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents depth (Max recursion depth, 0 = unlimited, default 0) and root_uid (Start tree from this entity UID, omit for full tree). The description's 'Use root_uid... Use depth...' essentially paraphrases the schema with no added detail such as UID format or depth semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Build a nested entity tree from the Kaiten sidebar') and specifies exactly which entity types are included (spaces, documents, document groups). Describing the result as a 'recursive tree with children arrays' clearly distinguishes this from flat-list siblings like kaiten_list_documents, kaiten_list_spaces, and kaiten_list_document_groups. An agent can tell this tool apart without opening any sibling schema.

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 implies when to use it — when you need the hierarchical sidebar structure rather than a flat list — but it never names an alternative or states an exclusion. The 'Use root_uid...' and 'Use depth...' sentences explain parameter usage, not tool-vs-alternative selection. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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