get_document_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read via 'Gets'. It says nothing about permission requirements, tree depth, whether the whole hierarchy is returned, or how large projects are handled.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of well-structured detail.

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?

For a single-parameter read with full schema coverage this is close to adequate, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the 'document tree' contains or its shape. An agent knows how to call it but not what to expect back.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents projectIdOrKey fully. The description adds only the implied association of the project parameter with the tree, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Gets the document tree') and 'tree' hints at a hierarchical result, which loosely separates it from the flat-list siblings. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from get_documents, get_document, or add_document, leaving the agent to infer which document-accessor applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite information, and no mention of the closely related siblings get_documents and get_document. The agent is left to guess whether this should be preferred over a flat document listing.

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