get_schema_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the BFS traversal algorithm, max_depth bounding, and the structure of the returned data. This provides sufficient behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 highly concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, return structure, and key parameter details. Every word adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description lists the return fields (root, nodes, edges, unresolved) and their contents (type, properties, etc.). It also explains the max_depth parameter, making the tool's behavior predictable. However, it could briefly mention what 'unresolved' means.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It only partially explains 'schema_name' (as root) and 'max_depth' (with default). The 'repo' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 action ('BFS walk') and the resource ('schema reference graph from a root schema name'), distinguishing it from other schema-related tools. The return structure is also outlined, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison to sibling tools like 'find_operations_using_schema' or 'get_section_descendants'.

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