get_network_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses bounded BFS execution, exact semantics of max_depth and max_nodes, path-based visited deduplication, handling of cycles/shared ancestors, and server-side response cap. It also reports truncation and truncation_reason, which is more transparent than most tool descriptions.

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 dense and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then using bullets and code spans to explain parameters, return fields, and dedup behavior. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (BFS with limits, dedup, truncation) and has no output schema. The description covers return fields, truncation, and dedup, which is essential. However, it leaves ctx unexplained and does not describe the shape or semantics of nodes/edges beyond their names, nor error scenarios. These gaps prevent a perfect score, but most critical operational details are present.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains max_depth and max_nodes in detail (including the special case 0 = only parent_path) and implicitly defines parent_path via the phrase 'parent 节点的网络拓扑'. However, ctx is entirely unexplained, and the return structure of nodes/edges is only listed by name without further semantics. Thus compensation is partial.

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 it performs a bounded BFS traversal of the parent node's network topology and explicitly marks it as READ_ONLY. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_children or find_nodes by describing the traversal algorithm (BFS, depth/node limits) and specifying return fields. The verb and resource are specific and accurate.

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 usage for traversing a node's network topology with configurable depth and node budget, and the cryptic 'add-scene-context-selection-materials' may hint at a use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_children, find_nodes, or other related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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