flow_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds context about output format (ordered steps, transitions, boundary crossings) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like auth needs or rate limits.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose with no wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists) and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain required parameters, how to construct input objects, or interpret results, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 0%, and the tool description does not describe any parameters. The schema provides names and enums, but the description fails to add meaning or clarify usage of the 8 parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify start/target entities, direction, depth, etc.

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's purpose: converting a graph path into ordered flow steps, transitions, and boundary crossings. It distinguishes from siblings like graph_path and graph_neighbors by specifying the transformation into a structured flow.

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 implies usage for 'end-to-end flow questions' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or usage context.

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