traverse_from

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

The disclosure includes key behavior (hops limit, graph traversal) but lacks details on cycle handling, performance, or precise definition of reachable. With no annotations, some gaps remain.

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?

One sentence, no wasted words, immediately communicates the tool's function. Model of conciseness.

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?

Description lacks output specification (format, contents, pagination) and doesn't mention default depth behavior. Without an output schema, this is a significant gap for an agent.

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 description adds no new parameter semantics. It focuses on tool purpose, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 tool walks the memory graph from a starting node up to N hops, returning reachable memories. It uses specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like related_to or search_memories.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as related_to or list_memories. The agent must infer usage from the name and description, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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