list_tree

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

The description mentions 'cached' (important for potential staleness) and 'no content' (lightweight nature). However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose other behaviors like cache refresh triggers, authentication requirements, or any destructive side effects.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence to convey the core output. It front-loads key information (cached, hierarchy, content exclusion). However, the conciseness sacrifices completeness, especially regarding parameters.

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 a single parameter with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on how the tech parameter affects output, what names/flags represent, and how to interpret the hierarchy structure, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 has one optional parameter 'tech' with no descriptions; schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameter's role, how it filters the hierarchy, or the behavior when omitted (e.g., returns all? top-level?). This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 returns a cached hierarchy from tech to version to topics, with names and flags but no content. It is specific about the resource and scope, and somewhat distinguishes from siblings like search_reference, but could be more explicit about the caching behavior and what 'topics' entails.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_for_update or search_reference. The description implies it's for retrieving a cached tree, but lacks context on appropriate scenarios or when not to use it.

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