Get Organization Chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states that a hierarchical view is returned, which implies read-only behavior, but it does not disclose potential limitations like depth default behavior, cycle handling, or permission requirements. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences without redundancy or fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 description provides a succinct overview of the output (hierarchical view) and the starting point (specific manager), which is sufficient for basic understanding. It does not elaborate on output format or edge cases, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is adequately complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptive names and descriptions (e.g., manager_id as 'uid, email, or DN', max_depth as 'Maximum depth to traverse'). However, the tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the score aligns with the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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's function: retrieving an organization chart starting from a specified manager and returning a hierarchical view. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_organization_chart_summary, which likely provides a summary, and find_manager_chain, which focuses on upward chains.

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 does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over its siblings. While the purpose is self-evident for fetching a full org chart, there is no guidance on scenarios such as comparing with get_organization_chart_summary or when max_depth should be adjusted.

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