GetObjectStructureLow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns an XML response, which is a key behavioral detail. It also describes the optional session parameters. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, permission requirements, or potential error conditions. Given the absence of annotations, more transparency would be expected.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, response format, and session management hint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No unnecessary words or fluff.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should provide adequate information about the return value. It mentions an 'XML response with object structure tree' but does not detail the structure or fields. For a low-level tool, users might need more context about the output format or error handling. However, for a domain-specific audience familiar with ADT, this may be sufficient. The absence of overall behavioral context (e.g., idempotency, side effects) keeps it from being higher.

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?

The input schema covers all four parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what is in the schema; it merely reiterates the session_id and session_state usage. According to guidelines, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves ADT object structure as a compact JSON tree and returns an XML response. The verb 'retrieve' is specific and the resource 'ADT object structure' is identified. However, there is inconsistency between 'compact JSON tree' and 'XML response', which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

The description mentions using session_id and session_state from GetSession to maintain the same session, which gives context for session reuse. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this low-level version versus the sibling GetObjectStructure, nor does it provide exclusion scenarios or prerequisites. The '[low-level]' tag hints at audience but lacks explicit guidance.

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