Check Tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral guidance: findings should be surfaced to the user and not auto-remediated, which an agent could otherwise get wrong. It does not describe result volume or ordering.

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 tight sentences, the diagnostic list first and the behavioral caveat second. Slightly dense phrasing ('children linked to only one of a couple') costs a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the full set of checks plus the expected agent posture. Adequate for a single-parameter read-only diagnostic tool.

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?

Only one parameter (tree) with 100% schema description coverage that already explains UUID-preferred-or-exact-name semantics and points at list_trees. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb (list) and enumerates exactly what is surfaced: children linked to only one parent in a couple, duplicate names, and placeholder parents. That makes it clearly distinct from mutation siblings like merge_people or update_people, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is an implicit directive to report findings rather than fix them, which shapes how the agent should act, but there is no guidance on when to run this check versus calling merge_people or update_people directly. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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