activate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the algorithm (Personalized PageRank) and that it returns ranked results, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core action and algorithm, making it easy to scan. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present and only two parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, algorithm, and result type sufficiently. It lacks detail on edge weighting or use cases but is reasonably complete for the complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain context (edge weights) but does not enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema already provides (seeds as comma-separated names, top_k as integer with default).

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 clearly states the tool's function: spreading activation from seed nodes to find the most relevant nodes in the graph using Personalized PageRank. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., 'find', 'neighbours') by specifying a unique algorithm and return type.

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 explains the tool's purpose and algorithm, providing context for when to use it (finding relevant nodes via activation). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, missing an opportunity to guide selection among siblings.

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