reaches

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only contributes the phrase "Read-only" to signal safety. It says nothing about truncation when max_bytes is exhausted, how cycles are handled, whether results are ordered, or what the response looks like.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core semantics front-loaded and zero filler. The clipped "Read-only." fragment is arguably the most useful per-word signal in the whole definition.

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 five-parameter graph-traversal tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable but thin. It should clarify directionality relative to 'impact', describe truncation behavior tied to max_bytes, and note how workspace discovery affects resolution.

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 a baseline of 3 applies – the schema already documents target, max_bytes, max_depth, workspace, and include_type_only with defaults and constraints. The description mentions target and max_depth, but adds no syntax, format, or interpretation guidance beyond those fields.

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?

"Reverse reachability: which nodes depend on target within max_depth" names a specific operation and resource, and the parenthetical defines what the result set actually is. It is clear on its own but never contrasts itself with the sibling 'impact' tool, which a reader would plausibly confuse with reverse dependency traversal.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, despite four siblings (impact, search, focus, arch_snapshot) that could plausibly cover adjacent questions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the reverse-direction counterpart to a forward traversal.

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