traverse_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it reveals nothing about side effects, return format, performance implications, or required permissions. The word 'traverse' implies reading, but no explicit statement is made.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness. No value is delivered beyond the name; a tool with 15 parameters needs substantive explanation.

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 complex tool with 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is wholly inadequate. It does not even hint at the tool's core functionality, performance budgets (edge_budget, node_budget), or traversal direction semantics.

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% for 15 parameters. The description provides zero information about parameter meaning, relationships, or constraints, leaving the agent to guess from names alone (e.g., what is the difference between node_id, from_node_id, to_node_id, start_node_ids?).

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 simply restates the tool name ('traverse graph') without any additional specificity. It does not identify the resource being traversed, the nature of the graph, or how it differs from siblings like find_paths and search_paths. This is a pure tautology.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of alternatives. With 80+ sibling tools, the absence of any usage context leaves the agent unable to make an informed selection.

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