get_session_agent_tree

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tree spans all turns, uses parent_session_id for lineage, and is suited to multi-turn sessions where execution traces are incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core concept and then explain the relevant usage context. The internal reference '#227' is minor noise, but overall the description is efficient and readable.

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?

For a read-only tree query with one required parameter, the description and schema together provide enough to select and invoke the tool. It does not describe return shape or potential size, but no output schema exists and the key semantics are covered.

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 documents both session_id and execution_id. The description reinforces the session-anchor concept but adds no parameter-level detail 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 clearly identifies a session-scoped agent tree built from parent_session_id lineage, including supervisor and subagents across turns. It partially differentiates from per-execution tracing, but does not explicitly name or distinguish it from sibling tools like get_execution_trace or get_agent_lineage.

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 gives a clear usage context: multi-turn sessions where an execution-level trace does not fully represent the tree. It implies the contrast with per-execution tracing but does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use this one.

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