mempalace_traverse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the graph/tunnel scope and the bounded-hop behavior, which are not present in annotations. It does not detail output shape, but that is handled by the output schema.

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 leads with the action verb and immediately conveys the core scope and constraint. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 only two parameters (one required), clear annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and core behavior. The bounded-hop constraint and resource types are enough to understand what the tool does; missing sibling differentiation affects usage guidance but not overall completeness.

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%, with both parameters already described. The description reinforces max_hops via 'bounded hop count' and clarifies start_room's role in traversal, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the strong schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Traverse') and names the resources (tenant shared-room graph and explicit tunnels) with a clear constraint (bounded hop count). It is not fully differentiated from the sibling tool mempalace_follow_tunnels, but the object and bounded scope make the purpose reasonably specific.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mempalace_follow_tunnels or mempalace_list_tunnels. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or preference over siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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