wiki_get_document_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only indicates that the operation is recursive and likely read-only, but does not disclose potential performance impacts, authorization needs, or the structure of the returned tree. Important behavioral context is missing.

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 a single, concise sentence in Chinese, directly stating the functionality. While brief, it is front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from a slightly expanded explanation of parameters and return 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?

Given the tool's complexity (recursive tree retrieval with two parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description lacks sufficient context. It does not explain how max_depth affects the recursion, the format of the tree structure, or how this compares to siblings like wiki_list_children. The agent has limited information to judge appropriateness.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema properties (parent_id and max_depth). The agent receives no guidance on how these parameters affect the tree retrieval.

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 tool recursively retrieves the document tree structure, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wiki_get_document (single document) and wiki_list_children (immediate children) by explicitly mentioning recursion and the use case of building a knowledge base index.

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 mentions it is suitable for building a knowledge base index, implying a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like wiki_list_children for smaller subtrees or wiki_get_document for a single document, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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