get_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and partially meets it: it discloses the default relation composition (ancestors+siblings+children), the accepted alias names (up/down/lateral/context), and the trap that 'children' returns a full subtree. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, or return shape.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the relation enumeration. The closing sentence about the missing children-only view is dense but earns its place as a behavioral warning.

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 key ambiguity (what each relation returns) is resolved, which is the most valuable thing for this tool. But with no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description is only adequate, not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It documents relation thoroughly (values, aliases, default) but leaves nodeId and projectId entirely unexplained, so coverage is only partial.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Get a node') and immediately clarifies what 'tree' means by enumerating the relation modes. It implicitly separates itself from list_nodes/search by framing the tool as fetching one node with surrounding context, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives the default relation (context) and warns that there is no children-only view, which steers the agent toward subtree. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus list_nodes, search, or read_view, so selection guidance is only implied.

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