Walk a depth-limited instance hierarchy

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: per-node truncation counts, pcall-resolved paths that return { error } instead of failing, cost=high, and required state (active-client, resolved-target). That is exactly the kind of operational disclosure annotations cannot express.

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 core is front-loaded and clear, but several lines are redundant with structured fields: the Signature line duplicates the input schema, and 'idempotency=read-only' plus 'Safety: read-only' repeat the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations. The Phase/Requires/Produces/On-failure block is useful but verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description supplies the return shape (nested { name, class, children }) and the per-node truncation reporting, plus error behavior and prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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%, so defaults, ranges, and the dotted-path example are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Signature' line mostly restates those fields; the only added nuance is that the path is pcall-resolved. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (return/walk), resource (instance hierarchy under a dotted path), the exact return shape ({ name, class, children }), and the bounding parameters. It also distinguishes itself from get-instance-properties, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use this for broad structure exploration; use get-instance-properties to read one instance's values.' The when-to-use condition and the named alternative are both present, leaving nothing to inference.

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