Nest Taxonomy Tree

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no new behavioral details beyond stating it retrieves a tree. With good annotation coverage, the bar is lower, but the description could still clarify pagination or depth limits, which it does not.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite the tool being simple with one optional parameter and good annotations, the description fails to cover the parameter's role. It explains the output comprehensively but omits usage details, leaving it incomplete for effective invocation.

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 0% for the only parameter 'response_format', and the description does not mention it or explain the meaning of the enum values (json vs markdown). An agent receives no guidance on how to use the parameter, which is a significant gap.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves the full taxonomy tree including nests, branches, and memory counts. The verb 'Get' and resource 'full taxonomy tree' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like localnest_nest_list and localnest_nest_branches by implying a comprehensive hierarchical view.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for selection. Agents must infer usage from the description of the output, leaving ambiguity.

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