get_children

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals important behavioral edge cases: direct-children-only traversal, orphan exclusion from 'unassigned,' and the FIX_CYCLES() repair path. This is substantial behavioral context that an agent could not infer from annotations or schema alone. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint exists.

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 main behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a concise recursion note and then a detailed but relevant orphan edge-case caveat. Each sentence earns its place, and the live-tested date adds credibility without excessive verbosity.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the core operation, iteration strategy, and an important data-consistency quirk. It also supplies a remediation path. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter parent_id, including valid special values like 'unassigned' and 'root'. The description repeats the notion of 'category/project' but does not add new parameter-level syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get open tasks and subprojects in a category/project.' It also clarifies scope by noting 'Returns direct children only,' which distinguishes it from recursive traversal and aligns with the tool's name. This is sufficiently differentiated from sibling tools like get_categories and get_today_items.

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 explicit guidance: 'call again for deeper levels' tells the agent how to navigate hierarchies. The orphan note also explains when not to expect orphans and points to get_today_items/get_due_items as alternatives for orphans with a day/dueDate, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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