traverse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the max depth constraint (3) and clarifies that entities are returned within N hops. However, it does not disclose whether the graph is directed, whether the start node itself is included, or any read-only safety profile. These are material behavioral traits for a traversal tool.

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 two sentences plus a compact Args list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes useful information. There is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple traversal tool, the description covers the essential parameters and the traversal scope. Since an output schema is present (per context signals), return values are not required in the description. Minor missing details like directionality or start node inclusion are not critical for basic 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?

The schema has no descriptions for its parameters (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. Start_node is explained as 'Entity name to start from', and depth is explained as 'Number of hops to traverse' with a default of 1 and an added max of 3, which is not present in the schema. This adds meaningful value beyond the structured definition.

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 a specific action: 'Traverse the graph from a starting node, returning all entities within N hops.' This is a specific verb+resource (traverse graph) and distinguishes from sibling tools like read_graph (likely reads the whole graph) or search_nodes (queries nodes). The resource is unambiguous and the action is concrete.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. Sibling tools are visible in context but the description does not guide selection. Usage is implied by the traversal semantics, but no exclusions or comparisons exist.

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