mimir_traverse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds that the tool walks the graph to a configurable depth and returns a chain of linked entities, which provides additional behavioral context beyond the annotation. It also mentions stopping conditions (max_depth, max_nodes). No contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and result. Every sentence adds value: first sentence describes what the tool does, second gives use cases. No redundancy or unnecessary words.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the input (starting entity, configurable limits) and purpose (exploring graphs). It omits details about output format but that's acceptable since an output schema is present. Missing explicit mention of dependency on mimir_link, but it's implied in 'relationship graphs built via mimir_link.'

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The overall description adds little beyond the schema: it restates that the traversal starts from a given entity and is configurable. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage; the description does not significantly enhance parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Walk the entity link graph') and resource ('starting from a given entity'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like mimir_link (which creates links) and mimir_get_entity (which retrieves a single entity). It also mentions the configurable depth and return type, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states the tool is 'useful for exploring dependencies, decision trees, and relationship graphs,' which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct alternatives, such as using mimir_get_entity for a single node or mimir_link for building the graph first.

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