get_library_metadata_by_ids_tree

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the tree-shaped return context and the exact endpoint path, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering, limits, or which metadata types support tree retrieval.

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-loaded. The purpose sentence comes first, followed by the endpoint and the parameter format. No sentence is wasted and there is no redundant prose.

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 one parameter, an output schema, and safety-related annotations, the tool is simple enough that the description covers basic invocation. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and does not explain what 'as a tree' concretely means, leaving some ambiguity for an agent navigating many similar metadata endpoints.

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?

The input schema only defines ids as a string with no description. The description compensates by specifying that ids is a comma-separated list, which is essential for correct invocation. It could additionally clarify what kind of IDs these are, but the tool name and endpoint make that reasonably inferable.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get metadata items as a tree.' The phrase 'as a tree' adds meaningful distinction from flat metadata listing tools. It does not explicitly compare with siblings, so it stops short of a 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_library_metadata_by_ids, get_library_metadata_by_id_children, or related tree-like endpoints. The only hint is the word 'tree,' which implies but does not state the appropriate use case.

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