get_statetree_full_info

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

The description details the behavioral aspects of the three verbosity levels and section filters, explaining what data is returned at each level. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it lacks mention of side effects, read-only nature, or performance considerations.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then detailing verbosity levels in a bullet-like format, followed by section options and parameter list. Every sentence adds value without 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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and many sibling tools, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality, parameters, and output granularity. It does not need to repeat return value details. A minor gap is the lack of a note confirming the operation is read-only.

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 fully explain parameters. It does so effectively, listing asset_path, verbosity with three explicit options, and sections with clear examples and syntax ('comma-separate multiple sections'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 complete StateTree data in one call with verbosity control,' specifying the verb (get) and resource (StateTree data). It differentiates itself from sibling tools that retrieve individual parts (e.g., get_statetree_states, get_statetree_evaluators) by offering a combined call with flexible verbosity and section filtering.

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 explains when to use this tool (for complete data with verbosity control) and how to use it via verbosity levels and sections. It implicitly contrasts with sibling tools by offering a single-call alternative, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare with alternatives.

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