traverse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the depth limit (max 3) and return behavior (all entities within N hops), but does not mention side effects, error handling for nonexistent start_node, or performance considerations. It adds some useful context but lacks deeper behavioral disclosure.

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 introductory sentence followed by a clean argument list. There is no filler; every sentence contributes useful information, including parameter defaults and limits.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers core purpose and parameters. However, it omits usage guidance and return format details (though output schema exists). Overall, it is reasonably complete for tool invocation.

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 the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: start_node is the entity to start from, and depth specifies the number of hops with default 1 and max 3. This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema fields.

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 ('Traverse') and resource ('the graph'), clearly stating the start node and the N-hop scope. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_graph (whole-graph read) and search_nodes (keyword search).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_graph or open_nodes. There are no exclusions or explicit context about ideal use cases; the description only states what the tool does.

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