Build a self-balancing AVL tree from a list of keys and get the inorder traversal, tree height, and optional key search results for balanced search validation.
Build an AVL (self-balancing BST) from a list of keys. Returns inorder traversal, tree height, and optional key search results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keys | Yes | Keys to insert into the AVL tree | |
| search_keys | No | Optional keys to search for in the tree |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose what comes back: inorder traversal, tree height, and optional search results. It also implies the operation is a pure build-and-compute with no external side effects. It does not mention any failure modes for edge cases like empty or duplicate keys.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler; the build action is front-loaded and the return summary follows. Nothing redundant.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return values, and both parameters are covered by the schema. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though a note on edge cases or the search result shape would close the remaining gap.
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 both parameters (keys, search_keys) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that search_keys is optional, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('AVL (self-balancing BST)') from a list of keys, and even names the outputs. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like rb_tree_sim or treap_sim by the AVL spec, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no conditions. Given sibling tools like rb_tree_sim, treap_sim, and skip_list_sim, an agent gets no signal about which balanced-tree tool to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.