narrower_concepts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the traversal algorithm (BFS), scope (narrower concepts), and depth parameter. However, it omits behavior when depth is omitted (depth is optional in schema), return format, pagination, or performance considerations. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core action and key constraints.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on optional behavior (depth), return structure, edge cases, or usage prerequisites. The agent may struggle to use this tool effectively without additional documentation.

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 baseline 3. The description adds the 'BFS traversal' context but does not explain parameter interplay or formatting beyond what the schema provides. No extra semantic enrichment, so score remains at baseline.

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?

Description clearly states 'BFS traversal of narrower (child) concepts down to a specified depth', specifying the algorithm (BFS), relationship direction (narrower/child), and depth limitation. It distinguishes from siblings like broader_concepts and related_concepts, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives. While the description implies use for fetching child concept hierarchies, it does not mention when to avoid it (e.g., for direct children only, use get_concept instead) or contrast with traverse_concepts. The agent must infer context from sibling names.

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