list_children

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a behavioral nuance that 'child usage overlaps parent usage,' which hints at data relationships. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or other operational details beyond that.

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 sentences with no redundant wording. The purpose and key usage hint are front-loaded, making it efficient and scannable.

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?

With 8 parameters, 4 enums, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits the purpose of optional parameters such as limit, sort_by, environment, and resource_kind, and does not describe the return structure. While annotations cover safety, the description leaves important calling context unaddressed.

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 only 25% (snapshot_id and name_contains have descriptions). The description adds meaning for the two required parameters by clarifying that resource_id is the parent's identifier and snapshot_id must be the same as the parent's. This is valuable, but it does not explain optional parameters like limit, sort_by, environment, or resource_kind, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 states a clear action ('Drill into') and a specific resource ('immediate children of a container, application, or attribution hierarchy'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_resources (likely top-level enumeration) and inspect_resource (single resource inspection) by focusing on hierarchical navigation.

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?

It gives clear guidance on what to pass ('the parent's resource_id and the same snapshot_id') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_resources or inspect_resource. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the choice somewhat implicit.

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