get_hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns children recursively (not just immediate children) and specifies the root starting semantics. This goes beyond the annotations and explains the tool's traversal behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. It states the core purpose first, then the root behavior, then the read-only note. The bilingual format is not wasteful; both language versions convey the same essential info. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value. It does state it returns a 'scene hierarchy tree' with recursion, which gives an agent a good high-level understanding. The main gap is the lack of detail about the tree node structure (e.g., what fields each node has). However, given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no destructive effects), this is a minor omission and the description is otherwise adequate.

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 already provides a full description of the 'root' parameter ('Root object name; scene or omitted = whole scene') with 100% coverage. The tool description repeats this information ('Omit root or pass scene to start at the root') without adding new detail. Per the calibration rule, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.

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 action: 'Return the scene hierarchy tree (children recursed).' The verb is specific ('return'), the resource is precise ('scene hierarchy tree'), and the recursion detail distinguishes it from flat-list tools like list_objects. Even without naming siblings, the purpose is unambiguous and unique among the provided tool list.

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 choose this tool over alternatives. It explains root parameter behavior ('Omit root or pass scene to start at the root') but does not mention when to use list_objects, get_object_info, or find_objects instead. The usage context is purely implied by the tool's purpose.

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