get_document_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Return') but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it describe potential side effects, performance characteristics, or error behavior. It also does not clarify what happens when document_id is null (though 'selected or active' hints at it). This is a significant gap given the lack of annotation support.

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 action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe the structure of the returned tree, what nodes are included, or how errors are handled. Since there is no output schema, the description would need to provide this context for an agent to fully understand the result, but it remains minimal. It is sufficient for a basic call but lacks depth for robust decision-making.

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 schema provides no description for the single parameter, document_id, and coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's role: 'selected or active document' implies that omitting document_id uses the active document, while providing it selects a specific one. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema and effectively clarifies the optional parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('assembly/model tree'), and clarifies the scope ('selected or active document'). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_document_composition or get_file_composition, which could be similar in purpose.

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, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it returns. An agent is left to infer that this is the tool for retrieving a tree structure, but there is no explicit routing or comparison to siblings.

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