power_tree

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

Without annotations, the description partially discloses behavior by stating 'Heuristic (library/value match),' indicating the tool uses a heuristic approach. However, it does not explain what happens when parameters are omitted or combined, nor does it describe the output format or any side effects. The behavioral insight is minimal.

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, consisting of two short sentences that convey the essential purpose and usage hint. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify the heuristic's nature, the meaning of 'library/value match,' the expected output structure, or what the 'project' parameter does. The tool has two parameters and is part of a set of tools, but the description leaves significant gaps.

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 description explains the 'rail' parameter ('Pass a rail name to filter'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the 'project' parameter is entirely undocumented, and the schema has 0% description coverage. The description only partially compensates for the lack of schema explanations.

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 it shows 'Regulators and the rails they feed,' which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from the sibling 'net' tool by noting that this tool uses a heuristic and is intended for power tree exploration, while net is for full fanout of a rail.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: to view regulators and rails, optionally filtering by a rail name. It also explicitly directs users to 'Use net() on a rail for its full fanout,' offering a direct alternative. However, it does not discuss when not to use the tool or mention other siblings.

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