locations_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states that the operation retrieves a nested tree and can include items, which are useful behavioral facts. However, it does not disclose defaults, potential size/performance implications, response structure, or any read-only guarantees, leaving meaningful 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 one tight sentence with no wasted words. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the optional-items behavior is compactly appended in parentheses.

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 boolean and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation semantics: what is returned (full nested tree) and the parameter's effect (optional items). More detail on return shape or limits would help, but the simplicity of the tool keeps the gap small.

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?

There is only one parameter, withItems, and the schema offrs no descriptive coverage. The description's parenthetical '(and optionally items within them)' effectively explains the parameter's purpose, which is enough for a simple boolean flag. It does not state the default value, but this is minor for a single 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('locations'), and output shape ('full nested tree'), and clarifies that items can optionally be included. The phrase 'full nested tree' differentiates it from flat list or single-location tools, though it does not name sibling tools explicitly.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving a hierarchical view of locations rather than a flat list, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The optional-items parenthetical hints at one use case but does not explain when to prefer this over locations_list or locations_get.

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