Blast radius

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds 'Read-only' and specifies return shape '{ nodes: [{ id, label, type }], edges }', which adds context beyond annotations. No contradictions. Score 4 for meaningful addition.

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 two sentences: first defines purpose and return shape, second gives usage guidance. No filler, front-loaded with essential info. Perfectly concise.

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 single parameter, high schema coverage, and annotations describing safety/idempotency, the description adequately covers usage and return structure. Absence of output schema is mitigated by description of return format. Could detail node types but not required.

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% for the single parameter nodeId, which is described as 'Graph node UUID'. Description does not add further parameter details but mentions 'report node' context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses specific verb 'Return' and resource 'other components/pages a bug group touches' with method 'knowledge-graph traversal from the report node'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_knowledge_graph and analyze_codebase_impact, earning a 5.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use before dispatch_fix to scope a change safely') and when to use alternatives ('use get_knowledge_graph to traverse from an arbitrary seed, or analyze_codebase_impact for file-level import impact'). This provides clear guidance.

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