optimize_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavior: the tool removes nodes and reallocates them. However, it omits critical details such as whether changes are persisted, whether the operation is reversible, or how constraints interplay with the reallocation. The disclosure is partial, not comprehensive.

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, tight sentence (13 words) that uses a dash to add a concrete detail. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, with no redundancy or filler.

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 full schema coverage and clear purpose, the description lacks essential context for a tool with nested parameters and no output schema. It does not mention whether the tool modifies the build, returns an optimized tree, or how constraints are applied during optimization. This is a significant omission for a complex operation.

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 explains each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics—it only gives a general overview of the optimization process. The description's phrase 'better options' slightly hints at the goal parameter but is too vague to add meaningful meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('optimization'), clearly identifies the resource ('passive tree'), and adds scope ('Full') plus a concrete behavioral outcome ('removes inefficient nodes and reallocates to better options'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'suggest_optimal_nodes' or 'compare_trees'.

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 implies usage (use this for full passive tree optimization) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The phrase 'Full' hints at scope but does not elaborate on when other optimization tools might be preferable.

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