get_tree

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

The description includes '[READ ONLY]' which discloses the read-only nature of the tool, a useful behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does not mention what 'bounded' means (e.g., depth limit, size limit) or any other behavioral details like performance or error conditions. The read-only hint adds value but is minimal.

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 that front-loads the read-only hint and states the core function. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 has one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the description does not clarify what 'bounded' means in practice (e.g., max_depth semantics, default behavior, or how the hierarchy is structured). Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is adequate but leaves the parameter's effect implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'max_depth' parameter. The description's word 'bounded' hints that max_depth controls the hierarchy depth, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's meaning, default behavior, or valid range. This is a partial compensation, but not enough to fully clarify the parameter semantics.

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 ('Return') and resource ('bounded model-tree hierarchy'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_model_summary or get_project_info, but the 'model-tree hierarchy' phrasing is specific enough to convey its purpose.

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 usage by indicating it returns a bounded model-tree hierarchy, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_model_summary or get_project_info. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, so the agent must infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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