myco_traverse

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

No annotations were provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses side effects (writing a cached graph JSON to .myco/state/graph.json), caching behavior, and invalidation based on file mtime. It also explains the return structure. This provides good transparency, though the claim 'Side effects: none' slightly contradicts the cache write, which is a minor inconsistency.

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 structured with clear sections: action, usage, side effects, returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and outputs. While somewhat verbose, each sentence adds information. The fungal analogy is engaging but not necessary. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return fields including orphans, dangling, proposals, and counts. It covers caching and invalidation. However, it does not detail the format of 'proposals' or the structure of the cached JSON. Tool complexity is moderate, and description is largely complete.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by explaining the scope parameter with valid values and cost implications, and project_dir resolution order. It also mentions an internal parameter 'use_cache' not in the schema, which adds context but could confuse agents expecting it in the schema.

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 walks the substrate's cross-reference graph and reports health metrics, including node count, edge count, orphans, dangling edges, and proposals. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying its unique function of graph traversal and health reporting, as evidenced by the concrete outputs listed.

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 usage scenarios: periodically to detect knowledge islands, before a release to verify docs against code, and when debugging missing references. It also notes the tool is cheap and read-only, implying it can be run often. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives among siblings.

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