ui_tree_resource_children

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a subtree is returned and hints at size, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens with missing or invalid resource identifiers, what depth semantics beyond the two mentioned, or how the result is shaped. For a tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The usage guidance and depth examples earn their place, though the absence of parameter context makes it feel terse relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

With 8 parameters, no descriptions in the schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves too much unspecified. An agent cannot confidently determine which identifier parameter identifies the saved ui_tree resource, what format options are valid, or what the return structure will look like.

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 0%, and the description only explains the depth parameter. The other seven parameters—path, fields, format, index_path, session_id, snapshot_id, and resource_uri—receive no semantic guidance, leaving the agent to guess how to identify the resource and control the output.

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 verb and resource: 'Return a small subtree from a saved ui_tree resource.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like ui_tree_resource_search, ui_tree_resource_get_node, and ui_tree_diff by focusing on subtree/children traversal rather than search, single-node retrieval, or diffing.

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 explicit usage context: prefer this over MCP resource reads when the full snapshot is large, and use depth=1 for direct children or depth=2 for immediate context. It does not mention sibling-tool alternatives, but the provided guidance is clear enough for selection in the most relevant scenario.

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