GetPackageTree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the return value (hierarchical tree) and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or mention permissions. Good transparency for a retrieval tool.

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 concise with two sentences: one for purpose and one for return details. No wasted words, and it is front-loaded with the high-level action.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain the structure of the returned tree, what types of objects are included, or how to interpret the hierarchy. With siblings like GetPackageContents, more differentiation is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not describe how parameters affect the output or provide usage examples. No value added over schema.

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 a complete package tree structure including subpackages and objects, returning hierarchical tree with names, types, and descriptions. This is specific and distinct from siblings like GetPackageContents or GetObjectStructureLow.

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 gives a high-level purpose but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like GetPackageContents. There is no 'use when' or 'not for' context, and no mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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