arcana_tree

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose read-only nature, recursion depth, or any side effects. For a tool that likely reads data, this is a gap.

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?

Extremely concise: one line for purpose, one for parameter. Front-loaded main action. No wasted words.

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 one parameter, clear purpose, and existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. Could add read-only hint or depth limit, but adequate for a simple tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds context: 'arcana:// URI' and notes default is 'root' (aligns with schema default 'arcana://'). Provides minimal added value beyond 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 'Show recursive tree at a arcana:// URI' clearly states the tool's action (show), resource (recursive tree), and scope (URI). It distinguishes from siblings like arcana_ls (flat list) and arcana_stat (status), earning a 4.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies usage for viewing hierarchy, but doesn't compare with arcana_ls or arcana_find. Missing scenarios or exclusions.

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