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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one behavioral fact beyond that — that traversal is restricted to the current-revision graph, implying historical revisions are excluded — but says nothing about result size, whether max_depth omitted means unbounded traversal, or performance/limit characteristics for a potentially unbounded walk.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy — the action, the starting point, and the return shape in order of importance. It is dense with unexplained domain jargon (PSPP, OPB), which slightly reduces accessibility but not conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so only at a high level ('grouped by PSPP dimension and their OPB annotations') without defining those groupings. For a traversal tool with four parameters and an unbounded-feeling walk, key behavior an agent needs — depth defaults, result scale, and the distinction from other graph tools — is missing.

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 direction (with its BOTH/INCOMING/OUTGOING enum and BOTH default) and max_depth are already fully documented in the schema. The description mentions the source revision but adds no meaning about direction semantics or what depth-zero means. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Traverse') and resource ('the current-revision graph from a source revision') and states the shape of the result (nodes grouped by PSPP dimension plus OPB annotations). It does not, however, distinguish itself from graph-related siblings such as get_graph, run_graph_query, plan_graph_query_sequence, or get_graph_completeness, and PSPP/OPB are left unexplained.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the several other graph tools in the sibling list, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a graph to exist or having a valid revision. Usage must be inferred entirely from the phrase 'traverse the current-revision graph'.

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