get_remote_tree

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

While annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: token-limit risks, default limits for max_nodes and max_children, collapse behavior with an example, and the returned fields including truncated. This gives the agent a realistic expectation of cost and 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?

The description is dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, critical warning, parameter meanings, defaults, and return shape. The inline warning about token limits is concise and high-impact, and the use of '...' and '=...' makes the parameter list 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no required parameters, the description fully covers behavior, defaults, return structure, and safe usage. It even warns about the counterpart tool relationship and token budget, making it complete for an AI agent to use safely.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains all five parameters: path (with accepted forms), depth (levels, -1=all), max_nodes (default 250), max_children (default 50), and collapse (grouping behavior with example). This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 uses a specific action ('Dump') and resource ('live scene tree of the RUNNING game') and explicitly names it as the runtime counterpart of get_scene_tree, clearly distinguishing it from that sibling. The scope and intent are immediately obvious.

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 clearly states this is for the RUNNING game and contrasts it with get_scene_tree, providing strong contextual guidance. It doesn't explicitly say 'use get_scene_tree for the editor tree' but the 'runtime counterpart' phrasing makes the recommended usage clear.

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