Open-Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'graph traversal' which suggests a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, or what happens with invalid inputs. The phrase 'via typed links' hints at filtering by link types, but doesn't explain how this works in practice.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core functionality without waste. It's front-loaded with the main action ('graph traversal') and includes examples of link types. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the resource or output.

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 implied by 'graph traversal' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the traversal returns (e.g., nodes, edges, metadata), how results are formatted, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured documentation beyond the description, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds context by implying the tool operates on a 'thought' and uses 'typed links', which provides semantic meaning beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't clarify how the starting thought is specified or if defaults apply.

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 states the tool performs 'graph traversal from a thought via typed links' which gives a general purpose, but it's vague about what specific resources or data structures are involved. It mentions link types like 'extends, contradicts, is-evidence-for' but doesn't specify what 'thought' refers to or what the traversal actually returns. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'search_thoughts' or 'list_thoughts'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for exploring relationships between thoughts via links, but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over other tools like 'search_thoughts' or 'list_thoughts'. No mention of prerequisites, constraints, or when-not-to-use cases.

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