traverse_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds the hard token budget, BFS/DFS algorithm, and return format including truncation fields. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences: action + purpose, usage guidance, return format. Every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the output structure and truncation behavior. It covers the key behavioral aspects, though could be slightly more specific about edge cases or default behavior.

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 field descriptions. The description does not add new parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions token_budget but only in context of response cap, not parameter details.

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 it walks the dependency graph from a starting symbol/file using BFS/DFS with a token budget. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_call_graph or get_change_impact by emphasizing structured traversal without committing to call-graph shape.

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 notes usage for structured 'what reaches this from N hops away?' and mentions no commitment to call-graph shape. While it doesn't list specific alternatives, the context implies this is for exploration, and the siblings list provides options.

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