get_all_subsuites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions pagination but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, whether it's read-only or destructive, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the emoji adds visual cue, 'Get all subsuites' states the action, 'from a root suite' specifies scope, and 'as flat list with pagination' clarifies output format and behavior.

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 read operation with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output structure but lacks behavioral details (rate limits, errors) and sibling differentiation. With no annotations and no output schema, more context would be helpful for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond implying the tool operates on a 'root suite' and produces a 'flat list', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in parameter 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all subsuites from a root suite'), and specifies the output structure ('as flat list with pagination'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_suite_hierarchy' or 'get_root_suites', which likely provide hierarchical or root-only views respectively.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_suite_hierarchy' (likely hierarchical) and 'get_root_suites' (likely root-only), the description lacks explicit comparisons or context for choosing this flat-list approach over other suite retrieval methods.

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