game_ui_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists actions (get/select/collapse/add/remove) which imply the behaviors, but it does not explain side effects, whether add/remove are persistent, require special permissions, or affect the actual game scene vs a detached UI tree. The action list is a minimal behavioral disclosure, but lacks depth for a mutation-capable 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the operations. It is efficient and avoids waste, though it could have been slightly more structured by separating the actions with clearer punctuation. It earns its place by summarizing the tool's purpose in minimal words.

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 tool with five parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain how nodePath and itemPath relate, how to address top-level items vs subitems, what happens when a select/collapse action references a missing item, or what get_items returns. An agent working with a tree UI would need more context to call this reliably.

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 100%, so all five parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds the action list context, which clarifies the 'action' parameter values, but it doesn't explain the semantics of itemPath (slash-separated indices) or column beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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: 'Tree control: get/select/collapse/add/remove items'. It clearly identifies the tool as operating on a tree UI control and lists the core actions. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like game_ui_item_list or game_ui_tabs, the action list and 'Tree control' resource provide enough clarity for an agent to distinguish it.

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 implies when to use the tool by naming the control type and actions, and the sibling list contains many UI-related tools like game_ui_item_list and game_ui_tabs, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. An agent must infer usage from the resource type and action list, which is adequate but not explicit.

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