cross_ref

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions BFS traversal but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format looks like, if there are any limits on depth or result size, or whether authentication via token is required. This is a significant gap for a traversal tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and key parameters. It is concise and free of redundant information, earning every word.

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 graph traversal tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the result contains, how depth affects the traversal, or how the token is used. It also lacks any guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it in a complex workflow.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'start' parameter by describing it as an 'id/anchor', which is missing from the schema. It also implicitly clarifies 'depth' as a hop count, though the schema already provides that. The token parameter is well-described in the schema. Overall, the description compensates for the missing start description without fully explaining all parameters.

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 states the tool's function: a breadth-first walk over depends_on/doc_refs edges from a start id/anchor. This specific verb+resource+method distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_by_id (direct lookup) and text_search (text-based search). It is unambiguous and actionable.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need to explore transitive dependencies or references from a starting node. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives such as query_by_status or query_by_kind. The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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