walk_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return type but does not disclose behavior such as cycle handling, performance implications, default limits, or whether the tree is pruned by max_depth/max_elements. The 'nested tree structure' is the only behavioral hint.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the return format is included. Efficient and appropriately brief.

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 three parameters (one required) and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits parameter semantics, usage context, and any behavioral details about traversal limits or output shape. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters. root_id, max_depth, and max_elements are left entirely to the agent's interpretation. Since the schema also lacks descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: walk the containment tree from a root_id, and indicates the return type (nested tree structure). It is unambiguous about the core action, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_element_structure or list_children.

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 given on when to prefer this over alternative traversal tools such as list_children or get_element_structure. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or trade-offs between depth and breadth.

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