conceptio_graph_walk

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

Annotations already state readOnly and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: the walk is metadata-only and spends no credits, and dangling targets appear as claimed nodes. It also explains the shape of returned nodes and edges, though it does not discuss rate limits or auth.

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 front-loaded with the core action and remains dense without obvious filler. A few phrases like 'the compliance walk' add flavor but do not obstruct selection.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently explains that results include nodes with distances and canonical edges with relation kinds. It also covers the dangling-target case, leaving only minor edge cases like pagination unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter meaning is already well documented. The description reinforces direction and kind filtering but mostly restates what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: walk the reference graph from a seed source_id. It distinguishes the operation from keyword search and names the provenance use case, so an agent can select it confidently over siblings like conceptio_search.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: when an agent needs provenance, such as finding what cites a regulation two hops out. It also contrasts this directly with keyword search, giving a clear alternative path.

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