Erinys Traverse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses nothing: not whether traversal is read-only (implied but unstated), how cycles or large graphs are handled, whether max_depth bounds cost, or whether relation_filter narrows traversal. An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, but the operational behavior is entirely absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally sound. But brevity here shades into under-specification rather than economy — the one sentence could have carried the parameter and routing information the agent needs at no structural cost.

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 graph-traversal tool with three unannotated, undescribed parameters and many overlapping siblings, the definition is not complete enough to invoke confidently. The output schema covers return values, but input semantics, depth behavior, and alternative selection are all missing.

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% across three parameters. The phrase 'from a starting observation' weakly implies start_id, but max_depth (default 2) and relation_filter (default null) — the parameters that most affect behavior and result size — are never mentioned, and no accepted relation names or depth semantics are given.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('traverse graph') with an entry point ('from a starting observation'), so the basic action is clear. However, it never distinguishes this from sibling tools like erinys_lineage, erinys_search, or erinys_context, which plausibly also walk relationships, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The 27-sibling namespace makes this a real cost — an agent has no signal to route between traverse, lineage, search, and context.

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