get_group_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or the format/structure of the returned tree. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (hierarchical data retrieval), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error handling, or prerequisites. With no structured fields to compensate, the description should provide more context to be fully complete for an agent.

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, fully documenting the single 'workspaceId' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The score is elevated to 4 because the description implicitly reinforces the parameter's role by specifying 'in a workspace', aligning with the schema's purpose.

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 ('hierarchical tree structure of all groups in a workspace'), specifying the exact scope and format of the output. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_groups' (flat list) and 'get_root_groups'/'get_child_groups' (partial hierarchy) by emphasizing the complete tree structure.

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 usage when a hierarchical view of all groups is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_groups' or 'get_root_groups'. It provides clear context (workspace-based) but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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