tree

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: parentage is derived from the event stream, nested dict contents are elided by default, and `frame` is the alternative for printing them. No behavior contradicts the annotations.

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 one dense, purposeful sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then conveys the two slicing modes and the key behavioral distinction from `frame` in a compact way.

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 tool has no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral details: slice centering, depth default behavior implied by schema, and elision of nested dict contents. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly mentioning defaults like `run=last`, but those are fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds meaning on top by clarifying the role of `around` versus `root` ('centres the slice' on an event id versus a frame id), which is not fully captured by the schema's terse 'event ref (e40)' and 'frame ref (f12)'.

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 identifies the resource and scope clearly with 'call-tree slice' and explains the two slicing modes (`--around` on event id, `--root` on frame id). It stops short of a 5 because it lacks an explicit verb like 'prints' or 'shows', though the intended action is unambiguous and it distinguishes itself from the sibling `frame`.

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 gives concrete context for when to use the tool's two main modes: `--around` for event-centered slices and `--root` for frame-centered slices. It also implies when the sibling `frame` is preferable ('nested dict contents are elided, `frame` prints them'), though it does not explicitly enumerate exclusions versus other siblings like `grep` or `flow`.

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