Trace fantasy relations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'bounded relation graph' context, but does not disclose specific traversal behavior or output format. No contradiction with 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose and key constraints.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list of relations). It does not explain output, the bounded nature beyond 'maxDepth', or how to interpret results. Missing critical context for an agent to use effectively.

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 hints that 'key' refers to a canonical entity card, but does not explain 'maxDepth' or provide syntax/format details. The parameter semantics are only partially addressed.

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 uses a specific verb 'traverses' and identifies the resource 'bounded relation graph around one canonical fantasy entity card' for the purpose 'multi-entity reasoning'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_fantasy_entity' and 'search_fantasy_catalog'.

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 multi-entity reasoning but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_fantasy_catalog' or 'get_fantasy_entity'. No when-not or alternative names are provided.

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