traverse

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses what an empty result means and explicitly states that the tool will not invent order relationships, which is important trust-relevant behavior for an AI agent.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, typical use cases, relation semantics, and empty-result behavior each get exactly one sentence. There is 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?

For a traversal tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers the crucial domain context: what order means, how relations map to prerequisites vs. follow-ups, and how to interpret empty results. It could be slightly more complete by explaining remaining relation types like 'contrasts', but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the semantic difference between 'requires' (선행 조건) and 'enables' (후속 가능 작업), which is not fully captured by the schema's terse relation description.

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 that the tool follows construction order and precedence relations, with concrete example questions. It is specific enough to distinguish 'traverse' from siblings like answer_why or compare, though it does not explicitly name the closest alternative.

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?

It gives clear guidance on when to use the tool ('공정 질문에 쓴다') with concrete examples such as '기초부터 골조까지 순서'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended context is well established.

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