vault_traverse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes BFS traversal and the return shape, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, nor does it address error handling or performance implications.

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 structured with a purpose sentence, an Args block, and a Returns sentence. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the block format adds slight verbosity compared to a prose description.

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?

The description covers all parameters and the return shape, and an output schema exists so the details of returned nodes and edges are captured. It does not discuss edge cases like missing start nodes or cycles, but for an exploration tool with an output schema, it provides sufficient context for invocation.

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?

The input schema contains only parameter names and defaults, with no descriptions. The description compensates by defining 'start', 'depth', and 'direction', including the enumeration of direction values ('forward', 'backward', 'both'), providing clear semantics beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Explore the link graph around a note via BFS traversal', which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from simple backlink listing. The mention of forward/backward directions and directed edges further differentiates it from sibling tools like vault_backlinks.

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 clearly implies its use case: when an agent needs to explore the connected structure of notes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so guidance is clear but not fully comprehensive.

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