get_section_descendants

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries real informational weight: traversal is BFS over parent_id, results are in document order, and each result carries a depth offset — non-obvious behaviors. The 'no content' exclusion also sets expectations. It omits any note about result-size limits for very large subtrees.

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 tightly packed sentences with the core action front-loaded; each clause adds signal. The leading 'v1.43+ —' version tag is minor noise that delays the verb slightly.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden; it does describe ordering and depth offset but not the shape of the returned entries or any cap on result volume for deep subtrees. Adequate for a read-only traversal tool, but key return details are left unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so repo, section_id and max_depth are already documented; the description's restatement of max_depth=1 adds no meaning beyond the schema. It also does not mention the v1.147+ doc.md#anchor ambiguity fields detailed in the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (return every descendant of a section) plus the mechanism (BFS over parent_id), ordering (document order) and output attribute (depth offset). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_section_path, which returns ancestors, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It names the complementary tool (get_section_path for ancestors) and explains the max_depth switch (1 = immediate children only), giving clear selection context. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, though 'Handles only — no content' implicitly steers content retrieval to get_section/get_section_excerpts.

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