list_children

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious behavior: locked assets are opaque by default and only revealed when a flag asks for them. It omits other relevant traits such as read-only nature, pagination or result ordering, and whether recursive changes the shape of the output.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the flag caveat following. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence packs two distinct flags into one clause rather than clarifying each.

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 five-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the agent is left not knowing the return shape, what values filter_type accepts, or how recursive alters results. Only the locked-asset behavior is adequately 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain five parameters, but it only gives meaning to include_locked_assets ('raw contents') and dive_target ('editable content'). recursive, parent_path format, and especially filter_type (a free-form string with no enum) are left entirely unexplained.

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?

A specific verb plus resource: 'List children of a network node' tells an agent exactly what is returned and for which entity. It does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as list_network_boxes or layout_children, so it stops 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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus siblings, nor any prerequisite such as parent_path needing to be an existing node path. The only selection guidance is implicit, buried in the flag discussion about locked assets.

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