Container Tree

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond those annotations: the tool starts at a given container, returns items living directly under it, and falls back to the top-most visible containers if root is inaccessible.

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 two sentences, begins with the verb and resource, and every clause adds useful information. It avoids repetition of schema or annotation details and stays tightly scoped.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, a defined default behavior, open-world annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It fully covers invocation semantics, root handling, direct-children scope, and permission-aware behavior, making it complete for an agent to call 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 coverage is 0%, and the sole parameter has no schema description. The prose compensates by explaining what 'container_name' means ('starting at the given container') and how to use the default 'root' value, including the permission-aware fallback. This is sufficient guidance for the single parameter.

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 identifies the operation ('Get') and the resource ('organizational structure... containers: tenants, locations, nodes'), and specifies what is included: hosts, host groups, and service groups directly underneath. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which target monitoring stats, logs, host info, and other specific lists.

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 gives clear operational context by explaining the special 'root' value and the fallback behavior when root access is unavailable. It does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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