Classification tree

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: localisation of item ids in Russian Archicad, that childCount reports what maxDepth cut, and the exact return shape ({guid, id, name?, children?}). Remaining gaps (pagination/limit behavior) are minor.

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?

Dense but well-organized and front-loaded with the return shape before the modifiers. Three sentences with essentially no filler, though the localization aside is slightly tangential to invocation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so explicitly ({guid, id, name?, children?} plus flat-path format). Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning on top: it explains the interaction of `search`/format 'flat' (flat list with full paths 'Parent > Child'), clarifies `root` returns a single branch, and explains maxDepth's cut behavior via childCount. More than the schema alone conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the items of a classification system as a tree'), and immediately differentiates the two output modes (nested tree vs. flat list with paths and depth). It also scopes itself against siblings by noting the ids are consumed by set_element_classifications / get_elements_by_classification rather than being this tool's output.

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?

Gives concrete usage direction: use `root` to get one branch, `maxDepth` to limit large systems, and `search`/format 'flat' for flat output. This is clear context for how to call it, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_classification_systems or get_classification_item_details, so no true alternatives/exclusions framing.

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