gh_data_tree_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read' matches that safety profile without contradiction. The description adds a useful detail by explaining that the result is a list of branches, but it does not disclose edge cases like missing component IDs, invalid outputs, or how the optional 'output' parameter behaves.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and result format immediately, making it easy for an agent 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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete: it identifies what to read and what format to expect. It only falls short by not addressing the relationship to the batch or set variants, but that is more of a usage-guidance gap than a completeness gap.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it does not explain 'component_id' or 'output' beyond what the schema shows. 'component_id' and the default of 0 for 'output' are present in the schema, yet the description provides no additional guidance about their meaning or valid values.

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 operation ('Read'), the resource ('component output'), and the expected return format ('DataTree (list of branches)'). It does not explicitly distinguish from the related sibling tools 'gh_data_tree_get_batch' or the set variants, so it loses the top score.

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 no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as 'gh_data_tree_get_batch' or 'gh_data_tree_set'. There are no explicit context cues, conditions, or exclusions to help an agent choose among the related sibling tools.

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