Walk Redfish graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail: BFS traversal, returns nodes with uri/depth/type and visited_count, and an example with limits. This goes beyond annotations, but doesn't mention potential large result sizes or network behavior, which would be useful.

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?

Three sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the 'escape hatch' label. Each sentence serves a purpose: usage context, algorithm, return format, and example. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description fills the remaining gaps: when to use (escape hatch), how it works (BFS), what it returns (nodes + visited_count), and a concrete example. For a graph traversal escape hatch, this is complete.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description's example (start_uri, max_depth, max_nodes) reinforces usage but doesn't add new semantic meaning. The return description helps infer parameter intent (e.g., depth/nodes limits), but it's not a significant enhancement over the schema.

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 function: 'Perform a breadth-first walk over linked @odata.id resources.' The verb 'walk' is specific to graph traversal, and the resource 'Redfish graph' is distinct. It also frames itself as an 'escape hatch' for topology exploration, distinguishing it from typed list/get sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use: 'use for topology exploration when typed list/get tools are insufficient.' This provides usage context and indicates that typed tools are preferred for standard queries. It doesn't name specific sibling tools, but the category 'typed list/get tools' is clear enough. No explicit when-not is given, but the guidance is strong.

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