bw_get_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the payload of both output modes — including that nodes are typed (text node vs. characteristic value) and indented by level, which is not derivable from the input schema. It omits any note on permissions, size limits, or pagination for large trees, so it is not fully complete.

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 action, then the two-mode split, then the routing guidance — a sensible order. The second sentence is long and packed with a comma-list of node attributes, which costs some readability but every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description describes the shape of both return modes, which is the most important gap to close for this tool. It stops short of covering the raw/version parameters in prose, but those are adequately documented in the schema.

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; however the description adds meaning the schema only hints at by spelling out the semantic switch on hierarchy_name (absent = list hierarchies, present = full tree) and framing each mode's output. The format and version parameters are left entirely to the schema, but that is acceptable at full coverage.

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 ("Read the hierarchies of a characteristic") and then splits the two distinct behaviors by parameter presence: list mode (versions, validity, levels, node count) vs. tree mode (each node with type, name, text, id, indentation). An agent can distinguish this from bw_query_data and bw_update_hierarchy 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?

Explicitly names both downstream alternatives and the condition selecting each: use this to find the node to filter on in bw_query_data, and to read a tree before modifying it with bw_update_hierarchy. That is a genuine when-to-use statement tied to named siblings.

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