get_tree_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output shape (compact indented text tree), the information included per node, and the error condition when the node does not exist. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, but the 'get' prefix and summary nature make the mutation profile clear enough.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and output format, then immediately provides comparative guidance against a sibling tool, and closes with the error behavior. 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?

The tool is simple, the schema covers all parameters, and the description compensates for the absent output schema by describing the return value (indented tree with node fields). It also covers failure mode and usage intent. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call this tool and to interpret its result 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 baseline is 3; the schema fully documents nodeId, depth, and fileId. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and that is acceptable given the complete schema coverage. It does reference the depth-limited behavior indirectly by describing the summary, but no additional semantic value is needed.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('a node's subtree hierarchy'), and the exact output format (indented tree with component type, name, ID, and dimensions). It also differentiates itself from sibling get_jsx by emphasizing that it is a cheap, compact alternative. An agent can confidently identify what this tool does and how it differs from similar tools.

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 explicitly compares this tool to getJSX ('Much cheaper than getJSX for understanding structure') and tells the agent exactly when to use it: 'for orientation before diving into specific nodes.' This provides clear routing guidance and implies when not to use it, without requiring the agent to infer usage from the schema.

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