Content Descendants Tool

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that by disclosing that traversal depth is bounded and results are paginated, but it omits what a null depth means (default vs unbounded), pagination defaults, and ordering of results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the key constraints stated up front. The terseness borders on under-specification given four undocumented parameters, but structurally it is clean.

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?

For a four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and a dense set of near-identical hierarchy siblings, this one-liner leaves the agent guessing about defaults and semantics. It covers the gist but not enough to call the tool correctly without experimentation.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the meaning and largely fails to. It gestures at 'depth' and 'pagination' (limit/offset) but never explains that depth is nullable, what null implies, or what units/defaults apply to limit and offset.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read descendants of a content node') plus two scoping traits (bounded depth, pagination), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish descendants from the very similar sibling tools (children, ancestors, siblings, root_tree), so an agent must infer that 'descendants' means all levels rather than 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus evo.content.children, evo.content.ancestors, or evo.content.root_tree, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. 'Bounded depth' hints at a use case but stops short of guidance.

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