structure_getForest

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing the HTTP method (POST), the return format (formula + parsed flat rows with specific fields), and the fact that it reads the 'latest' forest. It doesn't mention potential pagination or performance, but the added endpoint and output detail go beyond the 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 tightly written sentences. The first sentence states the action, endpoint, and return value; the second gives a usage pointer to an alternative. No fluff or 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?

Given the read-only nature, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use a different tool. No output schema exists, so the description's mention of return fields is sufficient.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema, only implying that structureId selects the forest. Since the schema already explains forestSpec, structureId, and includeGenerators, the description's contribution is minimal but not absent.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource ('Structure forest (hierarchy)') and even states the endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tool by noting 'Prefer structure_getBoard for keys/summaries.'

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (to read the full forest/hierarchy with formula and flat rows) and when to prefer an alternative ('Prefer structure_getBoard for keys/summaries'). It also hints at using forestSpec for transforms/sQuery, giving clear contextual guidance.

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