engine_map_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention that the map is cached for the session (only in the schema), that it is a read-only operation, or any potential cost of loading the full tree. It also does not describe the return format or structure.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Everything the store is made of') and efficiently lists content categories. It's concise with no fluff, though the long list makes it slightly run-on and less scannable.

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 broad scope and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned tree looks like (nesting, keys, etc.), whether it's a snapshot or live view, or any session behavior. An agent would need to guess at the exact return format.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning—it reiterates the path narrowing effect but doesn't elaborate on value formats or interactions. The reload parameter is entirely absent from the description.

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 tool's purpose: it maps the entire store's structure, listing specific content types (modules, templates, statics, images, fonts, folders, journals). This distinguishes it from resource-specific siblings like engine_static_load or engine_template_add, though it doesn't explicitly name the closest alternative engine_map_units.

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 only hints at path usage ('path narrows it down to one branch') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other map or listing tools, nor any conditions for when it should be avoided. It also omits the reload parameter's purpose, which is only explained in the schema.

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