Print the instance tree

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new operational context: it requires the connected state, defaults to depth 3, and stops after a line budget ('max_nodes'), which tells the agent results can be truncated. It does not say what happens when root is invalid or no client is connected, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces and back-loaded with the knobs and the prerequisite. Every clause carries information (output shape, motivation, limiting parameters, precondition) and none is redundant filler.

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 return-shape burden and does so explicitly ('name and class per line'), also warning about line-budget truncation. Combined with the disclosed connected-state prerequisite and the default depth, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly for a 6-parameter read 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 every parameter is already documented at the same level of detail the description offers, including defaults and limits. The description's restatement of 'depth (default 3)' and the purpose of class_name adds emphasis but no syntax or format information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Print the instance tree under a path') plus the exact output format ('indented outline (name and class per line)'), and the Explorer-panel analogy makes the result immediately imaginable. That framing distinguishes it from find_instances (query) and inspect_instance (single-node detail) without the agent needing to open 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?

'Use it to get to know a game quickly' gives a clear selection context: broad reconnaissance rather than targeted lookup. The narrowing knobs (depth, max_nodes, max_children, class_name) further signal how to use it instead of a targeted search. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use it, so it is not a full 5.

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