get_subgraph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key 'bounded' constraint, which is useful context. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., whether it returns nodes, edges, or a complete subgraph) or any pagination/limits beyond what the schema provides, which would be helpful for a traversal tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the core purpose and the key 'bounded' trait. There is no fluff or redundancy; it earns its place entirely.

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 5 parameters, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not clarify what the output looks like (no output schema) nor give any guidance on selecting it over siblings. The 'bounded' term hints at limits, but the schema already covers depth and maxNodes. Additional context about result structure or typical use cases would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters (uri, seeds, depth, maxNodes, edgeKinds). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it only implies traversal from seeds. With full coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal extra value.

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 states the specific action 'Traverse' and the resource 'bounded OKF subgraph' with a clear mechanism 'outward from seed concepts'. It is distinct enough from siblings like get_neighbors and find_paths, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb and scope are clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_neighbors, find_paths, or get_graph. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions that would select this tool. The existence of multiple graph-traversal siblings makes this a significant gap.

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