traverse_knowledge_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states the traversal behavior and output ('returning nodes and edges up to max_depth hops') and clarifies the thematic/structural nature of the relationships. It does not cover missing-entity or error behavior, but the read-only character is strongly implied by 'Explores' and 'returning'.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence defines the operation and its output; the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage adequately. It omits edge cases like entity-not-found or cycle handling, but those are marginal given the low complexity and the schema's presence.

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 baseline applies. The description reinforces the max_depth semantics with 'up to max_depth hops' and the entity as a traversal start point, but does not add any details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is therefore appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Explores'), resource ('knowledge graph'), result ('nodes and edges'), and constraint ('max_depth hops'). The phrase 'rather than text search' explicitly diferentiates it from the search sibling, and 'structural or dependency links' distinguishes it from flat-list tools like list_related.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use context: 'to understand structural or dependency links between concepts'. It also tells the agent not to use it for text search. However, it does not name sibling tools explicitly nor enumerate exclusions beyond text search, so it stops short of a full 5.

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