Get Object Children

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

Annotations already provide excellent behavioral context (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations by specifying 'hierarchical object tree' context, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid object IDs. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a hierarchical query tool, it should ideally explain more about the return format (list of child objects? with what properties?), pagination behavior, or error conditions. The annotations cover safety aspects well, but the description doesn't complete the operational picture for an agent trying to use this tool effectively.

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 100% schema description coverage (the single parameter 'object_id' has description 'Resource ID'), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't clarify what format the object_id should be, what happens if the object has no children, or how the hierarchy is defined. The description mentions 'hierarchical object tree' which provides some context for the parameter, but no specific guidance.

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 'Get child objects in a hierarchical object tree' clearly states the action (get) and resource (child objects), but it's somewhat vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_object_parents' or 'dual_get_object'. It specifies 'hierarchical object tree' which provides some context, but lacks specificity about what constitutes a child object in this system.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'dual_get_object', 'dual_get_object_parents', 'dual_list_objects', and 'dual_search_objects', there's no indication of when this hierarchical children retrieval is preferred over other object querying methods. The description doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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