get_descendants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions depth limit and filters, which affect traversal, but does not disclose return format, ordering, cycle handling, or performance implications. Since it is a read operation, the lack of side-effect disclosure is acceptable, but the missing return format is a gap.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every phrase adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (recursive traversal) and lacks an output schema and annotations. The description provides the core functionality but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., an array of paths or object references), nor does it address edge cases like depth=0 or self-inclusion. More detail would be needed for full completeness.

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 provides 100% coverage for all 4 parameters, so the description need not elaborate. The description does mention class/name filters and depth limit at a high level, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('all descendants of an instance'), and specifies optional name/class filters and a depth limit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_instance_children, which likely returns only direct children.

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 implies its use for recursive traversal (via 'descendants' and 'depth limit') but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over get_instance_children or search_objects. No exclusions are mentioned, but usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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