Test plan tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds useful behavioral detail about traversal order ('DFS order from the root'), which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe what the output contains or any error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, which scores well for economy. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification; the 'ancestry' phrasing could be more explicit. Still, every word earns its place relative to the high-level purpose.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description still leaves critical gaps: it does not specify the return format (e.g., list of nodes, tree object) or clarify the ambiguous 'ancestry' term. An agent would struggle to predict the tool's output or how plan_id is interpreted in the tree.

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 fully documents plan_id as 'Test plan id' (100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description does not add any additional context about how plan_id relates to the tree (e.g., whether it is the root or any node), so it neither improves nor harms the semantic clarity beyond the 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 states the resource (TestPlan.tree) and the key behavior (ancestry in DFS order from the root), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kiwi_list_plans. It is somewhat terse and lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return', but the meaning is inferable for this domain.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or a preferred context such as 'use when you need the plan hierarchy' or compare to kiwi_list_plans. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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