create_tree

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what gets created (a new tiling tree with a root tile) and the methodology (MECE principles), but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this operation is idempotent, what permissions might be required, how the tree is persisted, or what happens if a tree with the same name already exists. It provides some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second explains the resulting structure and methodology. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what gets returned or how to verify success. While it adequately explains what the tool does, it doesn't address important contextual questions like what identifier is returned for the created tree, whether there are size limits for problem statements, or how to subsequently reference the created tree. The completeness is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how the 'name' parameter affects tree identification or how the 'problemStatement' influences the root tile's content. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('create') and resource ('new tiling tree'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for starting a tree exploration process. It explains the tree's structure (root tile representing solution space) and methodology (MECE principles), which differentiates it from tools like 'add_tiles_to_split' or 'split_tile' that work on existing trees.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to start exploring a problem/challenge by creating a new tiling tree. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context implies this is the initial step before using other tree manipulation tools like 'split_tile' or 'add_tiles_to_split'.

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