query_related

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral detail: results are sorted nearest-first and include a distance field, which tells the agent how to consume output. It omits important behavior for a traversal tool — which relations/edge types are followed, cycle handling, what happens for an unknown uid, and whether depth is capped.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then ordering, then result shape. Every sentence adds information and none is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values further, and the entry-shape line is a helpful summary rather than filler. Given no annotations on a read/traversal tool, the remaining gap is graph semantics — edge types traversed and edge cases — but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 0%, so both parameters (uid, depth) are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates: it defines `depth` as hop count from the origin and clarifies that `uid` is the origin node. It does not state the default value of depth, what depth=0 means, or the uid format, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 ("Return all vault nodes within `depth` hops of the given uid"), which is unambiguous about the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like query_neighbors, query_path, or find_nodes, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (query_neighbors, query_path, find_nodes, query_recent). The graph-traversal intent is only implied by the phrase "hops," leaving the agent to guess at routing.

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