cross_repo_traverse

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: direction options, symbol reporting, prerequisite, and empty return condition. It is thorough for a read-only traversal tool, though it could mention if the traversal is recursive or cached.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, direction options enumerated, and usage guidance. It is moderately concise; while it could be slightly shorter, every sentence adds value and is easy to scan.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, directions, symbol, and prerequisites. However, it lacks information on the return format (e.g., list of repos, dependency details), which is needed for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It clearly details 'direction' with examples and explains 'symbol' behavior. However, 'start_repo' and 'depth' are not explicitly described, leaving ambiguity. The description partially compensates but misses full parameter clarity.

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 ('traverse') and resource ('org dependency graph') to clearly state the tool's function. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'dependency_graph' or 'org_dependencies' by focusing on cross-service relationships and providing direction options for navigating dependencies.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool with concrete user queries ('which services use X?', 'what does auth-service depend on?') and a use case ('tracing a bug across service boundaries'). It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires repos linked via cognirepo init'), guiding proper usage.

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