Fodda

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'depth-first discovery,' which hints at the traversal algorithm, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, rate limits, authentication needs (implied by userId parameter), or what the output contains. For a graph traversal tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage context without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly. It efficiently communicates the core functionality in a structured manner.

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?

Given the complexity of a graph traversal tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but more context on operational aspects would improve 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying traversal from 'seed nodes' and 'depth-first' approach, but it doesn't provide additional semantics like examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 purpose: 'Traverse the graph from seed nodes to find related concepts and relationships.' It specifies the verb ('traverse') and resource ('graph'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_graph' or 'get_node', which might also involve graph operations. The phrase 'depth-first discovery' adds specificity about the traversal approach.

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 provides implied usage guidance with 'Useful for depth-first discovery,' suggesting it's for exploration rather than targeted queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_graph' or 'get_node,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is helpful but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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