get_mindmap

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

The description discloses key behavior: returns nested tree, includes orphaned nodes, subtree limiting. However, it lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or response structure, which would be expected given no annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage variants. No redundant information.

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 description is sufficient for a simple read tool but lacks details about the return format (e.g., JSON structure) which would be expected without an output schema. It could also mention performance or limits.

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 parameter nodeId is well-described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context about 'orphaned nodes' but does not provide significant new semantics beyond the 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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'mindmap as a nested tree'. It distinguishes between two use cases (full tree vs subtree) and differentiates it from sibling export tools.

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 explains when to use each variant (no arguments vs nodeId). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like export_*, leaving some ambiguity in multi-tool scenarios.

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