get_product_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 states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, or what 'nested folders and products' entails structurally. The phrase 'equivalent to frontend product tree' adds some context about output format, but overall behavioral details are minimal for a tool with an output schema.

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 concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. The second part ('equivalent to frontend product tree') adds useful context without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter or output, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 has an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values, which is adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like data retrieval constraints or client-specific nuances. The description is minimal but covers the core purpose, leaving gaps in usage and parameter guidance.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter-specific information. It mentions 'for a client', which aligns with the 'client_id' parameter, but doesn't explain its optionality (default null) or semantics. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, resulting in a baseline score due to lack of added value.

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's purpose: 'Get nested folders and products for a client', which specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('folders and products'), and scope ('for a client'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_products' by emphasizing the nested structure. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'configure_product_strategy' or 'create_new_product', which slightly reduces clarity.

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. It mentions 'equivalent to frontend product tree', which hints at a UI representation but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. With siblings like 'list_products' and 'configure_product_strategy', the lack of comparative context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate selection.

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