get_mindmap

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions retrieval and returns a structure or error, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This is inadequate 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, using bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description partially compensates by explaining parameters and return type. However, for a retrieval tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, potential errors) to be fully complete.

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 compensate. It explains the two parameters ('mode' with detail levels and 'turbo_mode' as text-only), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't fully detail how these parameters affect the output, leaving some gaps.

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 the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('current mind map structure from MindManager'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'serialize_current_mindmap_to_json' by focusing on retrieval rather than serialization, though it doesn't explicitly compare to all siblings.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'serialize_current_mindmap_to_json' or 'get_selection'. The description only states what it does without context for selection among similar tools.

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