query_ckg

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (no mention of side effects), returns prerequisites and dependents, and links to Salesforce docs. It could mention error handling or existence guarantees, but overall is transparent.

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 extremely concise (4 sentences plus args list) with no redundant information. Key points are front-loaded: traversal, return structure, and parameter details.

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 no annotations, an output schema is present (so return values are covered), and the tool has only 2 simple parameters. The description fully covers purpose, behavior, and parameter usage, making it 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully supplements parameter meanings. It provides concrete examples for 'concept' and specifies valid range and default for 'depth' (1–5, default 3), which is not in the schema.

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 traverses the AgentForce knowledge graph and returns prerequisites and dependents. It uses a specific verb ('Traverse') and resource ('AgentForce knowledge graph'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_concepts or list_concepts by focusing on graph traversal.

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 usage for exploring relationships from a concept, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_concepts, get_prerequisites). No when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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