x3d_check_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details beyond the core action. It does not mention return value, error handling for invalid node names, or whether this checks against a scene graph or just the specification. The description simply restates the purpose without additional behavioral context.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clear formatted Args section. No redundant wording.

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?

As a simple check tool with an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral caveats, making it only moderately complete for a user choosing among sibling 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates with an Args section providing examples for parent_node and child_node. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare string type in the schema, though it could specify valid inputs more precisely.

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's function: 'Check if a parent-child node relationship is valid in X3D' and elaborates that it verifies child placement based on X3D 4.0 type constraints. This specific verb+resource definition distinguishes it from siblings like validate_x3d or x3d_node_info.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_x3d or x3d_semantic_check. The description only explains what it does, not the appropriate context or exclusions.

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