Query Impact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it describes the read-only query nature, the exact output shape, sort order by propagation distance, and the important pointer behavior that the result path is a pointer and full content must be loaded from source. This goes well beyond the schema and annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections for when to use, when not, parameters, and return value. It is dense but every sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 there is an output schema, the description still adds crucial context: the ordering of results, the pointer semantics of the path field, the exact parameter vocabulary, and concrete usage scenarios. Nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly 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?

Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining node_id naming conventions (data:user_table / module:auth_svc / req:login) and the exact meaning of direction values ('downstream'=谁被我影响 / 'upstream'=我依赖谁). This gives an agent everything needed to fill parameters correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '查询一个图节点的变更影响范围（谁会被这个节点的变更波及）'. It clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from a generic context query like query_context by focusing on change propagation and upstream/downstream impact.

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 provides explicit 'must call' scenarios and a clear 'not needed' case, which strongly guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative siblings or say 'use X instead', so the comparison against other tools is left partially implicit.

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