get_page_structure

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond being a read operation. It lacks information about performance, rate limits, or whether the result is limited by depth or visibility. The agent has no insight into potential side effects or constraints.

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 sentence of 12 words, front-loading the key action and result. It contains no extraneous information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 read tool without an output schema, the description provides essential information about what is returned (types, names, hierarchy). It does not specify the format or depth default, but these are covered by the schema. Minor gaps like whether invisible layers are included do not significantly hinder completeness.

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, so both 'depth' and 'pageId' are already documented with their defaults and usage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full page layer tree') and clearly states the information included (types, names, hierarchy). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_node_info or get_selection by targeting the entire layer tree of a page.

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 state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Context such as 'use for exploring page structure' is implied but not stated, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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