get_schema_graph

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It discloses that the tool performs a BFS walk, returns a specific structure (including unresolved), and bounds traversal with max_depth. However, it omits information about side effects, permissions, 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 two sentences long: the first states the purpose and algorithm, the second details the return format and key parameter. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure and bounds. The parameter 'repo' lacks explanation, but overall, the tool's behavior is sufficiently covered for a moderate-complexity tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'max_depth' and its default, and implicitly ties 'schema_name' to the root schema. However, 'repo' is not described, 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 uses a specific verb ('BFS walk') and clearly identifies the resource ('schema reference graph from a root schema name'), making it unambiguous. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'analyze_perf' or 'check_embedding_drift' by focusing on graph traversal.

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 the tool is for exploring schema references but does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling tools, clearer usage guidelines would be beneficial.

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