navigate_breadth_first

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the traversal algorithm and output fields (explored_nodes, edges_traversed, total_explored), which imply a read-only exploration, but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or that the diagram is not modified.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then uses structured Args/Returns sections. It is appropriately sized, though the Returns section is redundant given an output schema exists.

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 has four parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. The description covers three parameters and basic behavior but misses expand_composites and sibling differentiation, leaving minor gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains diagram_id, start_node, and max_depth (including default), but omits the fourth parameter, expand_composites, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Explore') and resource ('diagram structure') and names the traversal method ('breadth-first'). It differentiates from 'navigate_guided' by algorithm, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling.

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?

Provides an implied use case: systematically visiting nodes level by level is 'useful for understanding structure.' It does not state when to choose this over alternatives like 'navigate_guided' or any exclusions.

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