Knowledge graph traversal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds 'Read-only' and elaborates on traversal behavior (depth budget, clamping to 4 hops) and return structure, which provides valuable context beyond the annotations.

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 concise: 3 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by the description of return format), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter information adequately.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (seed, depth, default 2, max 4). The description does not add new information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline 3.

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's purpose: traversing the knowledge graph from a seed component or page. It specifies the return format (nodes and edges) and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning get_blast_radius and get_graph_neighborhood.

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 provides usage context: 'Use to see how a component connects to the rest of the app' and contrasts with alternatives: 'use get_blast_radius for a bug's impact area, or get_graph_neighborhood for a tighter BFS around one node.'

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