list_children

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format (list with id, name, type) and implies a read-only operation by the verb 'list', but does not mention error handling, empty results, or side effects. It adds some value beyond the name but is minimal.

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 with zero waste, front-loading the purpose and stating the return fields. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail. However, it does not differentiate from closely related tools like walk_tree or get_element_structure, and lacks caveats about ordering or errors. Adequate but not fully complete for a tool with many siblings.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parent_id parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning (e.g., format, source, constraints). Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('direct children of an element'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from walk_tree (all descendants) and search by explicitly stating 'direct children', so an agent can select it correctly.

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 implies the tool is for direct children only, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. An agent must infer from sibling names (e.g., walk_tree) that this is the right choice for immediate children. No explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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