graph_walk

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Reveals it walks specific relations and returns nodes in chronological order, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or what happens when chain length exceeds steps limit. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded with key action. Every piece of information is essential and no redundancy. Highly 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?

Covers purpose, specific relations, and output ordering. Lacks details on error behavior (e.g., no chain found) and exact return format of nodes. With no output schema, slight gap, but overall sufficient for its simplicity.

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 50%. Description adds meaning about relations and chronological order not in schema, but does not clarify that 'steps' parameter controls number of hops. Baseline 3 with moderate added value.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'walk' and specific resource 'reasoning chain following sequel_to, derives_from, and leads_to relations'. Distinguishes from siblings like graph_traverse and temporal_walk by specifying exact relation types and output order.

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 says 'Use to reconstruct the chain of thought', providing clear context. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparisons to sibling tools like graph_traverse or temporal_walk.

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