get_note_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only tree traversal, but it does not disclose behavior around invalid note IDs, whether returned items are full notes or just metadata, or how depth affects the result.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation and every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool is low complexity with two optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, so the description plus schema are largely sufficient. The main gap is the lack of explicit return-shape details, but this does not prevent correct selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters completely, including defaults, minimum/maximum values, and root semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline for high schema coverage applies.

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 uses a specific action ('Get') and a clear resource ('children/hierarchy of a note'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_note (which presumably returns a single note) and search_notes, even though it does not name those alternatives 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?

The description implies the tool should be used when an agent needs the hierarchical children of a note, which is useful but not explicit. It offers no guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool should be preferred for flat retrieval.

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