list_children

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or requires specific permissions. It also does not mention return format, pagination, or potential errors. The only behavioral nuance provided is the recursive flag, which is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 short, informative sentences. Every word earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the core action. No filler or redundancy.

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 list operation, the description conveys the core functionality but leaves out return format, ordering, or what constitutes a 'child'. Without an output schema or annotations, the description should ideally mention the shape of the response or any limitations, making it minimally adequate but not fully 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?

While the schema covers both parameters, the schema descriptions ('item_id parameter', 'recursive parameter') are tautological. The tool description adds meaningful semantics: it identifies item_id as the parent item and clarifies that recursive=True fetches all descendants, providing value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves children of an item, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_item' or 'list_items' by focusing on the hierarchy relationship, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar getters.

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 a clear usage guideline: setting recursive=True returns all descendants. It implies the default behavior returns immediate children, which tells when to use the parameter. However, it stops short of naming alternative tools or conditions when this tool should be preferred over siblings.

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