get_design_context

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

The description thoroughly explains behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, including depth-limiting, token-efficiency, deduplication of components, and how textOverrides are preserved in deduped instances. This is highly transparent.

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 relatively long but each sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but the information density is high and well-organized.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about tool behavior and parameter effects. It could briefly mention the return structure, but the tree concept and dedup flags are explained. Most use cases are covered.

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?

All 4 parameters are described in both schema and description, with the description providing deeper semantics. For example, it explains the fallback logic for nodeId, the meaning of depth values, detail levels, and the dedup effect including textOverrides.

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 the tool's purpose: getting a depth-limited, token-efficient node tree for exploring large files. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_document by explicitly recommending it over that alternative.

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 provides a clear usage guideline by stating 'prefer this over get_document', and explains the default behavior when nodeId is omitted. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide other alternative tools.

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