related_concepts

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

The description mentions BFS algorithm and depth limitation, adding behavioral context beyond a generic 'get related concepts'. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, how cycles are handled, or what the output format is.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core operation, though it could benefit from additional structure to separate input/output details.

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 complexity of a graph traversal tool, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, result order, limits on results, or error conditions. The absence of an output schema increases the need for description completeness, which is not met.

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?

The input schema already describes all 4 parameters with clear definitions (100% coverage). The description adds the algorithmic detail of BFS but does not augment parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool performs a BFS traversal of related concepts with depth control. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'traverse_concepts', 'broader_concepts', or 'narrower_concepts', which may overlap in functionality.

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. Siblings such as 'broader_concepts' and 'narrower_concepts' suggest more specific traversals, but the description does not clarify when 'related_concepts' is appropriate or when to use other traversal tools.

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