expand

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the id taxonomy and that depth>0 adds graph edges (a real behavioral trait, not repeated anywhere else). It remains silent on read-only vs mutation semantics, error behavior for bad ids, rate limits, and what 'full record' returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one non-obvious parameter behavior. Nothing is padded, though the extreme terseness leaves known gaps (max_tokens, id provenance) unaddressed.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage mean this thin description is the only documentation. It covers enough to make the call correctly (id required, depth optional) but omits what the record contains, how ids are obtained, and the role of max_tokens.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for two of three params: id (which entity kinds are accepted) and depth (non-zero pulls graph edges). The third param, max_tokens, is never mentioned despite controlling output size.

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+resource ('Fetch the full record for any id') and enumerates the accepted id kinds (memory, decision, entity, session, task, agent), which disambiguates the vague name 'expand'. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like search, why, or board, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

'Fetch the full record for any id' implies this is a follow-up to a listing/search tool that returns ids, and the depth clause hints at when to request graph edges. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is stated, so usage is inferred rather than guided.

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