Navigator tree

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: the default tree is ProjectMap, default format is 'tree', regex/id conventions and the flat-list field set. It doesn't mention size/pagination caveats beyond the limit parameter or performance considerations, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core outcome and structured as tree contents, node shape, flat shape, then id consumers. Efficient overall, though the long inline enumeration of viewpoints and node fields makes it denser than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values and does so precisely — both the tree node shape and the flat-list field set are specified, along with defaults and the id contract used by sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the semantic effect of the parameters — that types/nameFilter or format 'flat' yield a flat {id, type, prefix, name, path, depth, parentId, sourceId, childCount} list versus the nested node shape, and that sourceId links views to their Project Map viewpoint.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Returns a Navigator tree') and then enumerates exactly what each tree variant contains (Project Map, View Map, Layout Book, publisher set). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_navigator_items without opening any schema.

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?

It clearly signals the tool's role as the id source for downstream tools (get_navigator_items, rename/move/delete_navigator_items, clone_project_map_item_to_view_map, create_layout, layout settings), and explains how types/nameFilter/format switch the output shape. It never states explicit when-not conditions or a direct 'call this before X' instruction, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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