graph_graph_descendants

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, if it handles cycles, or if it returns duplicates. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer that it's a safe query.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing brevity (e.g., mentioning the graph context).

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 complexity of graph traversal and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, potential errors, or behavior with cycles, leaving the agent with insufficient information for correct 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?

Both parameters lack descriptions in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain 'name' (graph identifier) or 'node' (starting node), adding no meaning beyond the schema parameter names.

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 'Return all nodes reachable from the given node' provides a clear verb and resource, and the prefix '[graph]' sets context. It effectively distinguishes from sibling graph tools like graph_graph_ancestors (reverse direction) and graph_graph_path (specific route).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like graph_graph_path or graph_graph_ancestors, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., graph must exist, node must be valid).

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