get_subgraph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'bounded' and 'outward' which give context about traversal behavior, but it does not disclose additional traits like return format, pagination, or performance implications. It does not contradict 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 a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Traverse' and includes essential qualifiers ('bounded', 'outward', 'one or more seed concepts'). Every word contributes to understanding.

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 moderate parameter count and no output schema, so more detail about the return value could be helpful. However, the name and description clearly indicate a subgraph traversal, and the annotations and full schema cover safety and parameter semantics. It is adequate but leaves the exact output structure to inference.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema fully documents all five parameters including defaults and constraints, making further elaboration unnecessary.

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 states a specific action (traverse) on a specific resource (bounded OKF subgraph) with a direction (outward from seed concepts). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_graph (whole graph), get_neighbors (immediate neighbors), or find_paths (paths between nodes).

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 when a graph traversal from seeds is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It is a clear purpose but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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