tree

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses the one-level-at-a-time model, the recursion pattern, the container-defined sort order, and the per-node fields returned (documentId, type, name, per-locale status, hasChildren). This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the safety profile.

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, zero filler, and the core listing behavior is front-loaded before the node shape and the alternative-tool routing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned node fields and the ordering guarantee, and it covers multisite pitfalls via the schema. An agent has everything needed to call and iterate this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the omit-for-top-level semantics of parentId. The description adds traversal meaning by explaining that a node's documentId is what you feed back into tree to descend, which goes slightly beyond the schema's per-parameter text.

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 ('List ONE level of the page tree') and pins down the exact scope: direct children of parentId, or top-level pages when omitted. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_pages, list_blocks, and list_globals, so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use ('Use it to find the parentId for create_content/move_content') and when-not/alternatives ('For every page at once use list_pages; shared blocks and globals are not in the tree'). The traversal instruction ('call tree again with a node's documentId to go deeper') tells the agent how to walk the hierarchy.

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