get_reference_chain

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

Discloses BFS traversal, depth bound (default 3, max 8), composition of inspect_asset recursively, and direction behavior. Lacks details on cycle handling or performance, but provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and add directional guidance without unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, description mentions returning 'every node and edge' but not the format. However, context is adequate for a graph traversal tool with well-explained inputs.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the BFS algorithm context and the practical use of each direction, which goes beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it walks the asset reference graph BFS from a root, returning nodes and edges up to a depth bound. Distinguishes direction=up and direction=down with specific use cases, differentiating from sibling tools like inspect_asset.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use each direction: direction=up for impact-of-change analysis before deletion/renaming, direction=down for dependency audits before packaging. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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