ea_get_package_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description doesn't need to state safety. It adds context about the return shape (id, name, parentId, elementCount) and the depth behavior, which is useful. It doesn't disclose error cases or edge behavior, but for a read-only navigation tool with these annotations, this is sufficient.

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 sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter-specific behavior and return structure. Every sentence carries useful information, and the description is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read-only tool with no required parameters, the description is complete. It explains the output node fields, the effect of each parameter, and the default/limit for depth. There is no output schema, so the return description is essential and provided. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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% – both depth and packageId have clear descriptions. The main description echoes these semantics without adding new meaning. For instance, it repeats that packageId gets children and depth controls recursion. Since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly, the description adds minimal extra value here.

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 function: 'Navigate the package hierarchy.' It specifies two distinct behaviors based on parameter presence (top-level vs. children) and describes the node structure, making it unambiguous what the tool does. This differentiates it from sibling tools that list elements or search, even without naming 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: with no parameters for top-level packages, and with a packageId for children. It implies the tool is for hierarchy browsing, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when not to use it (e.g., when searching for a specific element). The guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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