explore_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'explore' and 'hierarchical breakdown', implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('explore the tree structure') and adds necessary detail ('from a specific tile, showing the hierarchical breakdown'). There is no wasted verbiage, 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex hierarchical data. It does not address what the output contains (e.g., structure format, data types), error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('tileId' and 'depth'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a 'tile' represents or the implications of depth levels. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('explore') and resource ('tree structure from a specific tile'), with the hierarchical breakdown providing additional specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_tile' or 'search_tiles', which might also retrieve tile-related information but with different scopes or formats.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_tile', 'search_tiles', and 'get_leaf_tiles' that might offer overlapping functionality, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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