execution_story

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation is bounded, forward, produces a graph structure, and resolves indirect dispatch, which are useful behavioral traits. It does not state whether it includes mutation, whether it is deterministic, how pagination/offset limits work in practice, or other operational implications an agent might need to know.

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 just two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, adds key differentiators (resolved indirect dispatch, graph orientation vs prose), and omits irrelevant detail. It is especially efficient while conveying a significant amount of information.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It tells the agent the output is 'graph shape', but not what nodes/edges represent, how pagination/branch limits affect the graph, or how text vs json formats structure the result. An agent now can start understanding the approach but has to guess how to use parameters correctly.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. The description only covers the notion of 'entry point' and general boundedness, which helps with entry and perhaps max_depth/max_steps, but does not explain the behavior of offset, branch_limit, branch_offset, frontier_offset, or how format changes output. Given 7 params with no description, this is a clear gap.

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 what the tool does: it traces a bounded forward call-and-branch path starting at an entry point, and it explicitly includes resolved indirect dispatch. It names the core resource being returned (a graph structure) and differentiates itself by noting it avoids narrative prose. However, it does not explicitly compare itself with siblings like load_graph or flow, so the differentiation is implicit rather than fully spelled out.

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 implies a use case: start at an entry point, follow branching call graph, get a structured trace. It gives a clear hint it is appropriate for forward reachability from an entry, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over alternatives or provides exclusionary guidance. Given there are many sibling graph and flow tools, an explicit 'use when you need...' is missing.

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