project_trace_reference_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the BFS algorithm, node deduplication, truncation at max_nodes, the 'truncated=true' flag, and the exact output shape. This is thorough and gives the agent realistic expectations of traversal behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by compact argument docs, return format, KB reference, and a minimal example. Each section adds necessary information without redundant phrasing or boilerplate.

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 5-parameter graph traversal tool with no annotations, the description is complete: it covers algorithm behavior, all parameters, output structure, truncation semantics, and provides a KB pointer and example. An agent can invoke this tool correctly and interpret its results without further lookup.

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%, yet the description documents all 5 parameters with meaningful semantics: start_package has an example, direction explains in/out, max_depth notes default 3, stop_on_class defines the stopping condition, and max_nodes explains the hard cap and default 500. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'BFS trace of the reference chain from a starting package.' It clearly states the tool traverses the asset reference graph and returns reachable packages, distinguishing it from asset-finding or unrelated tools. The direction semantics ('in' vs 'out') further clarify its exact scope.

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 gives strong contextual guidance by explaining what the traversal does, how direction works, and how truncation behaves. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the scenario is clear enough for an agent to select it for reference-chain tracing.

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