query_ckg

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

No annotations, but description discloses query-only behavior, output structure (prerequisites, dependents, doc URLs), and depth limits. Adequate for a read-only graph traversal 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?

Four concise sentences plus a clear Args block. Front-loaded purpose, no redundancy, every sentence adds value.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values may be documented there. Description covers relationship types and source URLs. Very good but could mention if traversal is bidirectional or depth scope more precisely.

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 coverage is 0%, but description thoroughly explains both parameters: concept with explicit examples, depth with range and default. Adds significant meaning beyond 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?

Clear verb 'Traverse' with specific resource 'AgentForce knowledge graph' and result 'prerequisites and dependents'. Distinguishes from siblings like list_concepts and search_concepts by emphasizing relationship 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?

Implied usage via example concepts and explicit depth parameter, but no comparison to siblings like get_prerequisites or resolution_path. Lacks when-to-use vs alternatives context.

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