broader_concepts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the use of BFS algorithm and depth limit, but omits performance traits, edge case behavior (e.g., missing concepts, circular references), or result format.

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 sentence of 10 words, zero waste, and front-loads the core information: algorithm, relationship, and depth constraint. Every word is meaningful.

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 the tool complexity (graph traversal) and good schema coverage, the description is adequate for core functionality. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., list of URIs, labels) or error conditions, which could be added without being excessive. No output schema exists to compensate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the overall purpose; it does not clarify parameter relationships or constraints beyond what is in the schema.

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 performs BFS traversal of broader (parent) concepts up to a specified depth, with specific verb ('traversal'), resource ('broader concepts'), and scope ('up to a specified depth'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'narrower_concepts' and 'related_concepts'.

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 used for hierarchical parent traversal but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., 'traverse_concepts' for general traversal, 'narrower_concepts' for children). No scenarios or exclusions are provided.

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