pageindex_local_get_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns a tree structure, but does not clarify whether it is read-only, if it requires authentication, what destructive effects might occur, or any rate limits. The lack of behavioral detail beyond the core function is a significant gap.

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 sentence that immediately states the main action. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. However, it could be slightly more structured with separate lines for clarity, but overall it is concise and efficient.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not specify what the tree structure looks like, how depth affects the result, or the meanings of the boolean parameters. More details would be necessary for an agent to use it correctly without additional context.

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 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description only mentions the optional depth ('maxDepth'). It fails to explain 'includeSummaries' and 'includePageRanges', which defaults are given in schema but no semantic context. The description adds minimal value beyond what is already in 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 it returns the 'PageIndex tree structure for a document', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document (which likely returns a single document) and search. The mention of optional depth limitation adds specificity. However, it could more explicitly contrast with sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pageindex_local_get_document. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios. The description only states the action, not the context of use.

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