bw_get_dataflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses output format thresholds (tree vs flat table) and direction conventions. It does not mention nondestructive nature or permissions, but the behavioral details are adequate for correct usage.

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 concise at about 5 sentences, with the main action front-loaded. The important instruction about printing the result adds length but is valuable. Some redundancy in listing object types could be trimmed, but overall it's well-structured.

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 the 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential behavioral aspects: output format, direction, and object types. It could mention read-only nature, but it provides enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the direction convention more thoroughly and noting defaults. However, most parameters are well-described in the schema, and the description doesn't significantly augment them.

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 clearly states the tool traces the data flow graph for a BW object, specifies the output format (tree or flat table) based on node count, lists included object types, and explains direction convention. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are for creation, activation, deletion, etc.

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 the use case: 'Use this to understand the full lineage of an object without navigating each connection manually.' It also provides an important instruction to always print the complete result. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like bw_xref.

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