get_tree

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Print ... as text" establishes a non-mutating read and a text return format, which is useful, but it says nothing about truncation: max_nodes defaults to 300, and an agent has no warning that a larger scene will yield a clipped tree rather than an error or complete listing.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core capability stated first and the parameter details following. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials of scope and depth but omits any treatment of max_nodes and of what output looks like when the node cap is hit. That omission is the main thing an agent could get wrong here.

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%, so the description must supply parameter meaning itself. It does well for two of three: root gets example values ('Workspace', 'game') plus its default, and max_depth is explained as recursion limiting with its default. max_nodes is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

"Print the instance tree of the open place as text" gives a specific verb (print) and resource (instance tree), which implicitly separates it from get_instance (single instance) and search_instances (filtered lookup). It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the distinction, which keeps it below 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool reads as a hierarchy-exploration aid, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose it over get_instance or search_instances, nor any mention of preconditions. An agent can guess the context, but the description does no routing work.

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