Get Native Mindmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the call validates the hierarchy and exposes ordered child IDs plus supported directions, but with an output schema present, disclosure of return contents is not strictly needed. It adds some value, not rich behavioral context (no error semantics for invalid IDs).

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core capability is stated first and the prerequisite ID-discovery hint follows, so it is properly front-loaded.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and only three simple string parameters, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and how to obtain the required ID. Minor gaps remain around workspaceId's role and behavior on an invalid or missing mindmapId.

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%, so the description must compensate: it does explain the origin of mindmapId via get_edgeless_canvas, which is the one non-obvious parameter. But docId and workspaceId (both opaque IDs, with docId reused as the pattern ref for mindmapId) receive no explanation of format, scope, or relationship.

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 ('Read and validate') plus the resource ('native mindmap hierarchy') and even enumerates the returned facets (ordered child IDs, text, collapsed state, geometry, directions). It distinguishes itself from the many mutation siblings (create_mindmap, add_mindmap_node, reparent_mindmap_node) simply by being the read side, though it never names them explicitly.

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 supplies a concrete discovery path for the required mindmapId ('Discover mindmapId via get_edgeless_canvas'), which is real when-to-use guidance an agent needs before calling. It does not, however, state when this read is unnecessary (e.g. vs. create_mindmap's return value) or any exclusion conditions.

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