list_children

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read-only listing. It does not state ordering, depth behavior, permissions, or what happens when the node has no children; the recursion option is mentioned but its cost or limits are not.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb and resource come first. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined pruning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is structurally simple (2 params, no nesting). Still, with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the semantics of 'path' and recursion depth entirely to inference.

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 both parameters are undocumented in structured data. The description only gestures at 'recursive' via 'optionally recursive' and says nothing about the required 'path' parameter (format, relative vs absolute, node addressing).

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all children of a node'), so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from adjacent listing tools such as find_nodes or layout_children, and 'node' is left undefined in a toolkit with many node-like resources.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives in a large sibling set that includes find_nodes and list_node_types. The 'optionally recursive' clause hints at a usage mode but does not say when recursion is appropriate or costly.

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