list_bin

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description only states which entity types appear in the tree; it says nothing about how depth limits traversal, whether the result is lazy, or how large a tree can get, which matters for a recursive listing tool.

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?

One tight sentence with no filler and the root-path convention placed up front where it is needed. It is slightly cryptic rather than verbose, but every clause carries information.

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 needn't be described, but the input side is bare: with 0% schema coverage, depth and project are undocumented and there is no hint about hierarchy shape or defaults. For a three-parameter traversal tool the description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 coverage is 0% for three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. It explains bin_path's empty-string convention (partial credit) but leaves 'depth' (default 3, clearly a traversal control) and 'project' completely undefined, forcing guesswork on two of three 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 names the resource (a tree of bins, clips, sequences and tags under a bin) and clarifies the root convention, so the agent can infer this retrieves a hierarchical listing. However, it never uses an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', relying on 'Tree of...' to imply the operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_sequences or list_projects, but only implicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling list tools (list_sequences, list_projects, list_project_tags), nor any exclusions. The only usable hint is the parenthetical that an empty bin_path means project root, which helps invocation but not tool selection.

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