graph_traverse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format as a list of {fact_id, depth, relation, path} dicts and the traversal nature, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention behavior on missing starting facts, cycles, or depth limit handling.

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 two sentences: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second gives the output contract. There is no filler, and the key behavioral information is front-loaded.

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 schema fully documents the parameters, and the description provides the purpose and return structure, which is enough for a first correct call. However, there is no output schema and the description does not cover edge cases such as empty results or how optional filters interact with traversal, leaving some context on the table.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already documents, but it does not need to because each parameter has a clear description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Multi-hop traversal from a starting fact." It also frames the exact question it answers, "what is connected to X?", which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_related or get_subgraph by emphasizing multi-hop traversal and the starting-fact requirement.

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 phrase "Answers 'what is connected to X?'" provides a clear, concrete context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it does not reach the 5-level of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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