Knowledge graph traversal

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it returns nodes and edges with a depth budget (max 4 hops), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose result format, pagination, or error handling. Given the annotations cover safety, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every part is necessary; no redundant information. Score 5.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and is read-only. The description states returns nodes + edges but does not specify the structure or format of the output. For a graph traversal tool, more detail on the return representation (e.g., IDs, labels, properties) would improve completeness. Score 3.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of the information. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (starting node, depth with default/max). Baseline 3 is correct.

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 that the tool traverses a knowledge graph from a seed, returning nodes and edges with a depth limit. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like graph_neighborhood and graph_node_status, which likely have different scopes.

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?

The description implies usage for graph traversal, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings. This leaves the agent to infer context without clear decision boundaries.

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