Get Session Tree (v3)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe, non-mutating nature is covered. The description adds context by specifying 'full branch tree' and 'v3 session', and the parameter schema further adds that session_id can be 'any node in the tree', which is a useful behavioral detail. It doesn't cover return format, but with annotations present the description provides meaningful additional scoping.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and key resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or filler.

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?

Despite having only 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple read-only retrieval tool. It identifies the input and the general output (full branch tree) without needing to explain return fields. Some ambiguity remains about what exactly the tree contains (nodes, messages, metadata), but given the simplicity and sibling context, it is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, session_id, is described as 'Session id (any node in the tree)' in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the full branch tree rooted at a v3 session' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (full branch tree) with clear scope (rooted at a v3 session). It contrasts well with sibling tools like lyzr_session3_list_branches (which lists branches) and lyzr_session3_ancestry (which likely traces ancestors), making its purpose distinct and easily understood.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you need the full branch tree from a session node. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'full branch tree' wording implies it is for complete tree retrieval rather than listing branches or getting a single session. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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