sap_get_tree_node_children

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

Annotations indicate not read-only and not destructive. Description adds that expand=true requires write permission, disclosing a behavioral trait beyond annotations. Also notes performance characteristic (much faster). No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, node_key usage, expand usage. No fluff, clear and front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Description covers main usage and constraints. Could mention error conditions or tree_id validity, but overall sufficient given tool complexity and sibling tools.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning for node_key (omission for root nodes) and expand (purpose and permission requirement). This compensates significantly for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Get direct children of a tree node.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tool 'sap_read_tree' by highlighting faster step-by-step navigation for deep trees like SPRO.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (faster than read_tree for step-by-step deep tree navigation) and how to use (omit node_key for root nodes, expand requires write permission). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the comparison to read_tree implies alternatives.

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