get_resource_tree

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

The description implies a read-only operation (getting documentation), which is adequate for a simple tool with no annotations. However, it does not mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements or rate limits, though these may be unnecessary given the nature of the tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No wasted words.

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?

The description is simple but does not explain what 'resource tree' means or what format the output takes. Lacks details about the return value, which is important since there is no output schema.

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 are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no param info because none is needed.

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 states it gets MetaID and Metalet wallet API documentation and resources, but does not explain the 'tree' aspect from the name, making the purpose somewhat vague. It does not distinguish well from sibling tools like get_manv2_api_resource.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states functionality without any context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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