get_tour

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: tour stops are ordered sequences linking to knowledge graph nodes, stop_index is 1-based, and leaving it empty lists all stops while specifying expands with full node details. It also states the return format, providing good transparency for a read-only tool.

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 succinct: a two-sentence intro followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value—defining the tour concept, explaining the parameter behaviors, and outlining return types. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool is simple with only two optional parameters, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains the core behavior well. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites, project selection context, or edge cases, which would make it more complete.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates well by explaining stop_index as a 1-based number with a specific behavior when empty, and project as the project name. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could clarify what happens when project is omitted (default null).

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 the tool retrieves a guided project tour—a curated walkthrough of important codebase parts. The verb 'get' and resource 'tour' are specific, and this distinguishes it from sibling graph/query tools like query_nodes or get_domain_overview.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you want a high-level curated overview or a detailed stop. It explains the stop_index behavior (empty to list all, specify to expand), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions among the many sibling tools.

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