get_universe_structure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond 'Retrieves' (implying read-only) and the REST path. It says nothing about required authentication, rate limits, response size, or whether the structure is cached/expensive to fetch.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource before the implementation detail (REST path). Nothing is wasted, though it is slightly compressed for the tool's complexity.

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 explanation is not required, and the tool is simple (one parameter, read-only retrieval). What remains missing is routing versus sibling universe tools and parameter format, which is a minor gap for a single-call getter.

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 only partially does by embedding {id} in the /sl/v1/universes/{id} path, hinting that universe_id is the universe identifier. It adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the single required parameter.

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 verb 'Retrieves' plus the specific resource 'complete business layer hierarchy (classes, dimensions, measures, attributes) of a universe' tells an agent exactly what comes back. It is distinguishable in content from siblings like get_universe_details, but it never explicitly contrasts with them, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the content fetched; there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_universe_details or get_universe_connection_id. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so it lands at the minimum-viable level.

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