icf_get_children

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a list of child codes, which is the basic behavior. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid code), case sensitivity, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple lookup but lacks depth.

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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose, followed by hierarchical examples, usage guidance, and explicit Args/Returns. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, clear hierarchy) and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return. It is nearly complete but missing notes on edge cases (e.g., empty results) or error conditions.

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 schema provides no description for the 'code' parameter (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying 'Parent ICF code to get children for', clarifying the parameter's role. This compensates for the schema gap effectively.

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 retrieves child codes (subcategories) of an ICF code, using specific verbs and resources. The examples of hierarchy ('d4 (Mobility) contains d410-d499') further clarify purpose, and the distinction from siblings like 'icf_browse_category' is implicit due to the narrow focus.

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 context for when to use ('drill down into more specific codes') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. While sibling tools exist (e.g., 'icf_browse_category'), no direct comparison is made.

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