get_category_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns, not whether it is read-only, has performance implications, or any side effects. For a simple getter this is minimal, but without annotation coverage, more transparency (e.g., 'This is a read-only operation' or 'Returns all categories and samples') would be expected. The description adds no behavior beyond the literal action.

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, compact sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key detail about hierarchy, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is functionally sufficient but lacks contextual richness. It doesn't mention whether the result is read-only (especially useful without annotations), nor does it clarify the exact shape of the tree (e.g., are samples embedded under categories?). The presence of many sibling tools makes a bit more contextual guidance valuable, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion about inputs.

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 tool gets the complete category tree structure and specifies the hierarchy (category → sample). It distinguishes itself from list_categories (which likely returns a flat list) by mentioning 'tree' and 'complete'. However, it doesn't explicitly name siblings or contrast with them, 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_categories or list_samples. It doesn't state situations where the full tree is needed, nor does it exclude cases where a flat list would suffice. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly articulated.

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