summarize_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: it never errors on validation, returns a multi_tree_hint instead, and tree_file must live inside an allowed read root (an access constraint). It never states the read-only nature of the operation explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the validate_tree exclusion, then a compact Args block. Every line adds meaning rather than restating the schema. Slightly verbose in splitting behavior into two sentences, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is correctly omitted. The non-error contract and multi-tree handling are covered. Minor gaps remain: no guidance on choosing tree_content vs tree_file, and no mention that all parameters are optional.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: each of the 6 parameters is explained with meaning beyond the bare names. Notably it surfaces the 1..10000 range on tip_labels_limit, the allowed values for multi_tree (first|last|random|split|all, absent from the schema), and the 0-based nature of tree_index.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Parse and summarize a tree') and enumerates the outputs (format, counts, root state, branch stats), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling validate_tree, which is the main source of confusion in this cluster.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not plus the alternative: 'Never fails on validation issues (use validate_tree for that)'. It also states the conditional routing behavior for a multi-tree file with no selection, so the agent knows this call is safe to make even with ambiguous input.

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