get_entity_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; 'Return' implies a read-only operation and the method of serving is disclosed. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or performance characteristics, though for a simple getter these may be less critical.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence adds a relevant execution detail without padding.

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?

Given a zero-parameter input schema and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned. It is slightly incomplete only in not addressing when to choose this over sibling entity/list tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meanings to add. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool; schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 names a specific action ('Return') and resource ('entity hierarchy') with an explicit output shape ('nested JSON tree'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_entities or get_scene_snapshot.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The note about being served natively by AiCompanion gem is implementation context, not usage criteria.

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