arango_traverse

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. Without annotations, it fails to mention that traversal is read-only, what the output contains (e.g., paths, vertices), or any side effects. The single sentence is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words, but could benefit from structuring to include more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on output format, parameter constraints, and edge cases, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly use the tool.

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 description adds meaning for start_vertex, min_depth/max_depth, and graph/edge_collections by mentioning 'start vertex' and 'depth bounds (by graph or edge collections)'. However, it does not explain direction, return_paths, or limit, and schema coverage is only 11%. The added value is partial.

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 clearly states that the tool traverses a graph starting from a vertex with depth bounds, and specifies two ways to define the graph (by graph name or edge collections). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like arango_graph_traversal or arango_shortest_path, missing a chance to distinguish.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arango_graph_traversal or arango_shortest_path. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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