device_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions depth and node caps, but this merely restates what the schema parameters convey. It does not disclose output format, error behavior, read-only status, or what the handle represents. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

A single, compact sentence with no wasted words. The core concept (compact text tree) is front-loaded, making it easy to scan. Perfectly concise.

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 4 parameters, one required, yet the description does not explain the required handle or the optional root. While an output schema exists, the description still leaves the agent guessing about what the tree represents, how to invoke it, and what constraints apply beyond depth and node limits.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It vaguely references 'depth and nodes' but never names handle or root, nor explains their meaning. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema.

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 it is a compact text tree of devices with depth and node limits, which differentiates it from list/get tools that return flat collections. However, it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'returns') and is terse, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_devices or get_device. The description does not mention any specific use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when a tree view is appropriate.

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