find_related_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs graph traversal with configurable distance and strength filters, implying a read-only operation. No side effects are mentioned, but the behavior is adequately described.

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 tool description is a single concise sentence. The input schema includes a more detailed description, so the overall documentation is efficiently structured. The brief description suffices as a quick reference.

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 complexity of graph traversal and 5 parameters, the description lacks information about return format or behavior when optional parameters are omitted. While the input schema descriptions are thorough, the outer description is minimal, making it adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The main description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; the input schema's descriptions already cover parameter semantics adequately. No improvement needed.

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 'Find related entities through relationship traversal' specifies a clear verb ('find') and resource ('related entities'), and the method (relationship traversal). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search_knowledge_graph' which is broader, and 'create_knowledge_relationship' which is write-oriented.

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 provides usage context: 'Use this to understand dependencies, find similar concepts, or discover related components.' While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use cases.

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