tree_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature, slice semantics, and the important behavior that derived branches are recomputed on every read, but it omits permissions, error behavior, and explicit confirmation that ordinary reads never mutate the tree.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the paragraph is mostly substantive with little repetition. It is dense with domain jargon and parenthetical asides, but every sentence contributes to invocation or interpretation.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values in detail, and it does describe the semantics of returned slices. However, for a tool in a large `tree_*` family, it is incomplete on sibling routing and path format, which are important for correct selection and 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%, and the description does compensate by explaining both parameters: `path` defaults to the whole tree and `depth` prunes the result. It still does not define the expected path syntax or depth limitations, so parameter meaning is only partially fleshed out.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read the Quern at `path`', with default whole-tree and optional depth pruning. It clearly describes a read/get operation, but does not explicitly distinguish it from closely named siblings such as `tree_find`, `tree_brief`, or `tree_check`.

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?

It implies usage through the path/depth controls and notes that derived branches should be inspected and linked rather than edited. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over any of the many `tree_*` alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions beyond the derived-branch note.

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