expand_schema_node

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses the output shape, the variant-specific behaviors, and the fact that the role mapping is a 'heuristic role map.' It also makes clear result is a delta to merge into the canvas. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state read-only/side-effect semantics, but the wording strongly implies a graph-query operation.

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 main purpose and is information-dense without wasted words. It is a single long sentence, but the enumerations are clear and every clause adds behavioral value.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains the return structure and all kind/view combinations. The only notable gap is that the effects of optional params like since and endpoint are not fully integrated into the behavior description.

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 already high (80%), and the description adds further meaning beyond the schema by explaining exactly what each kind and view combination yields. The description particularly clarifies the ambiguous view parameter for EntityType and the difference between entity/permission/role expansion.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Expand one node of the schema graph' and clearly defines the return as a {nodes, edges, message} delta. It distinguishes itself from the sibling visualize_schema_graph by calling itself 'the interactive companion,' and it enumerates what each kind returns.

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 gives clear usage context: use it for expanding a single node with different views rather than the whole schema graph. It also explains which behavior to expect for EntityType vs Permission vs Role, although it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives to avoid.

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