kb2_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining the meaning of the truncated=true field and the required 'note' scope. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond what the schema provides, though it does not mention potential pagination or error cases.

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 short, information-dense sentences: purpose, truncation behavior, and scope requirement. No wasted words; every clause adds value.

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 tool with a single well-described parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool returns, a critical field's meaning, and an access requirement. It is reasonably complete, though it could mention the return format structure slightly more explicitly.

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 sole parameter collection_id is fully described in the schema with 'ID базы знаний из kb2_list', so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 identifies the tool as returning a knowledge base document tree with parentId/children, distinguishing it from siblings like kb2_document or kb2_list. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making it slightly less direct than ideal.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kb2_list or kb2_search. The requirement for scope 'note' is a prerequisite but not usage direction. There is no mention of hierarchical use cases or comparisons with flat-list tools.

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