traverse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's only behavioral contribution is the qualifier 'declared' relationships, which usefully implies these are explicitly asserted rather than inferred links, but it says nothing about how depth, direction, or pagination affect the result.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and resource and contains no filler. It is arguably too terse for a 9-parameter traversal tool, but measured purely as conciseness and structure it is clean and efficient.

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?

An output schema and annotations exist, so safety and return shape need not be restated. However, for a traversal tool with depth, direction, view-based pagination, and source prioritization, one sentence leaves the agent without context on traversal semantics or paging behavior.

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 every parameter (depth, view_id, direction, source_ids, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The prose description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('declared relationships') scoped to 'an artifact version,' so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not, however, distinguish this traversal operation from siblings like inspect or discover, which likely also read artifact metadata.

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 choose traverse over the sibling tools, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., that artifact_id/content_digest must come from a prior Capalith call). The word 'declared' hints at a scope boundary but is not framed as usage guidance.

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