Blast radius

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds 'graph traversal' which is consistent but does not disclose additional behaviors like how errors are handled or whether pagination exists. With good annotation coverage, the description adds minimal new information.

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?

Two sentences with no filler content. The core purpose and usage advice are front-loaded, making it quick to parse.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and when-to-use adequately. It could briefly mention the return type or structure of the traversal, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with 'Graph node UUID'documenting the parameter. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 uses 'graph traversal' as a clear verb and specifies the resource: 'other components / pages a bug group touches'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'graph_neighborhood' or 'get_similar_bugs' by focusing on blast radius for bug groups.

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 'Use before dispatching a fix so the agent can scope its changes', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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