get_children

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently states the return fields and the error condition if the node does not exist. However, it does not disclose side effects (or lack thereof), potential limits, or sorting order. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich; it describes behavior beyond the schema but leaves some behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded ('Get the direct children of a node') and the return details are listed compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 straightforward 'get children' tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return values and error handling. It lacks details like ordering or empty-list behavior, but these are minor for a simple tool. The complexity is low, and the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters; the fileId handling is fully explained in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'direct children of a node', specifying what it returns (list of child nodes with fields). It differentiates from siblings like get_tree_summary by explicitly saying 'direct children' rather than a full tree, but it does not name the alternative. This is a clear, distinct purpose.

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 use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when to use get_tree_summary or find_nodes, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is 'direct children', which implies a need for immediate children, but no explicit comparison is given.

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