build_ownership_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable scope information: 'Traverses all relationships' and 'complete ownership sub-graph,' implying an exhaustive read operation. It does not disclose performance implications, but the added scope context goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, highly informative, and front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds detail about the tool's scope and output types, with zero waste 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only graph-building tool with no output schema, the description explains the full scope (what relationships are traversed) and the intended use case. It does not describe the output format, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema and the graph nature of the result. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 description covers 100% of the parameter (employeeId, 'The employee ID to build the ownership graph for'). The tool description does not add further parameter-specific details, so the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('ownership sub-graph for a given employee'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_repository_ownership (which focuses on repositories) and find_domain_experts (which finds experts). It states exactly what relationships are surfaced, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear use case: 'Use this to visualize an employee's full organizational footprint and identify knowledge concentration risks.' This implicitly sets it apart from more focused tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is strong but lacks explicit exclusions.

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