multi_hop_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the spreading-activation traversal and cites Collins & Loftus (1975), adding useful conceptual detail, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output shape is, or how depth/limit constrain traversal.

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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core operation and adds a useful theoretical reference without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It omits return format, parameter semantics, and usage boundaries, leaving an agent uncertain how to correctly set depth/limit or interpret the result. The conceptual explanation alone is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly references start_id ('start memory') and hop depth ('1 hop, 2 hops etc.'), but it does not explain the depth parameter as a maximum hop count, nor does it clarify the limit parameter. Two of three parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 specific verb 'Walk' and states the resource ('association network') and the action ('hop by hop from a start memory'), explicitly distinguishing multi-hop exploration from sibling search/recall/report tools. It clearly communicates what the tool does and its distinctive multi-hop scope.

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 a usage context (tracing associations at increasing distances) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like association_report or memory_map. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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