get_xmind_node_branch

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It discloses that the tool extracts a subtree up to a specified depth and mentions 'token overload' indicating output size considerations. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, how missing nodes are handled, or the output format. The term 'extract' implies a read operation, but more detail is needed for full transparency.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the action and then a brief use case. Every word serves a purpose; no unneeded filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description explains purpose and use case but does not describe the return format or error behavior. While the purpose is clear, the lack of output details leaves the agent with uncertainty about what to expect, especially for a tool with no schema-based return structure.

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 parameters are already well-documented (path, depth, nodeId). The tool description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema, only referencing 'specific node' and 'specified depth' which are already in the parameter descriptions. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: 'Extract a specific node and its subtree (up to specified depth) from an XMind file.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings (parse_xmind, search_xmind_nodes) by emphasizing targeted branch extraction rather than full parsing or node search.

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 provides clear context: 'Useful for large mind maps to avoid token overload by retrieving only relevant branches.' This implies when to use it (large maps where you want to avoid excessive output) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The schema's nodeId description suggests using search_xmind_nodes/parse_xmind to get IDs, but this is not in the tool description itself.

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