traverse_graph

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not re-state safety. It adds useful context about project-scoping and connectedness of results. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description does not disclose depth behavior or how partial/open-world results might appear, which the open-world hint only partially covers.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The usage condition and parameter source each earn their place. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers purpose, usage trigger, and the entityId source. With an output schema present, return-value details are reasonably delegated to structured data. However, given the depth parameter and the open-world annotation, the description is not fully complete for an agent to confidently control traversal scope.

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 only 33%, with taskId documented in the schema. The description adds semantic value for the required entityId by saying it comes from list_entities, which helps the agent source a valid value. However, the depth parameter remains completely unexplained, leaving an important semantic gap in how traversal depth works.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show project-scoped memories and entities connected to one entity.' This clearly distinguishes the traversal operation from siblings like list_entities or search_memory, and the mention of 'connected to one entity' conveys the graph-traversal nature.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when a change to one tool might affect related decisions.' It also gives a prerequisite ('Takes an id from list_entities'), which guides the agent toward the correct workflow. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for exclusion.

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