get_task_tree

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it lists tasks tied to a root, but it doesn't clarify return structure, pagination, or recursion depth. Consistent with annotations, but adds limited behavioral context beyond them.

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, tight sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'List'. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description leaves out critical details: it says 'List' but the name says 'tree', raising ambiguity about whether it returns a flat list or a hierarchy. It doesn't disclose recursive behavior or response format, which is significant for a task tree tool.

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 root_id semantics. It only mentions 'orchestration root' indirectly, providing no detail on what constitutes a root, how to obtain its ID, or expected value format. The connection is implied but not explicit enough to guide correct invocation.

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 lists every task belonging to an orchestration root, which is a specific verb+resource+scope combination. It distinguishes from siblings like list_tasks (which might list tasks generally) and get_task (single task), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tasks or wait_tasks. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios where this tool shines, leaving the AI to infer from naming alone.

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