Get Shelf Tree

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying it retrieves 'full file tree and file contents', which clarifies scope beyond just metadata. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details, relying on annotations for basic safety.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get the full file tree and file contents'). There is no wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving tree and contents), annotations cover read-only safety, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies scope but could improve by mentioning sibling differentiation or behavioral details like pagination.

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 schema only documents 'shelf_id' as a required string. The description compensates by implying 'shelf_id' identifies the shelf to retrieve, adding semantic context. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for clarity, though it doesn't detail format constraints beyond the 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full file tree and file contents for a shelf'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_shelf_file' (which might get individual files) or 'search_shelf' (which might search within shelves), leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_shelf_file' or 'search_shelf'. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid shelf_id) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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