get_tb_subtree

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does: "Return a slice" signals a non-mutating read operation, and "without pulling the whole tree into context" reveals a deliberate context-size-limiting behavior. It also exposes the prerequisite relationship with build_tb_hierarchy. It does not explicitly mention error behavior or output structure, but the core behavioral profile is clear enough for an agent.

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 two tight sentences. The first sentence states the operation and key parameters; the second adds usage context. No filler or redundant phrasing exists, and the most important action is 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?

For a four-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys what it returns, how to invoke it (after build_tb_hierarchy), and why to use it (context minimization). It does not describe the exact shape of the returned slice or edge-case behavior, but the parameters and sibling context fill most gaps, leaving only minor ambiguity.

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%, and each parameter already has a description (root, depth, handle, max_nodes). The tool description only re-states root and depth in prose and does not add meaning beyond the schema. Therefore the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema already does the explanatory work.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: "Return a slice of the component_tree" and clarifies the input key "root (dotted instance path)" with "up to `depth` levels." It clearly differentiates from full-tree-building tools by stating it "drill[s] into a branch" rather than pulling the whole tree.

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 second sentence explicitly gives the intended usage context: "Use after build_tb_hierarchy" and explains the benefit: "without pulling the whole tree into context." This provides clear when-to-use guidance, but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of a fully exclusive routing.

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