aleph_expand_entity

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about Aleph's data model: relationships are entities themselves, so they won't appear as plain fields on the record, and results are grouped by relationship type. This helps the agent set expectations beyond the 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and output shape are front-loaded, and the data-model explanation is kept to one compact second sentence.

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?

The description is adequate for a read-only network traversal tool: it identifies the input, the output, and an important conceptual gotcha. It does not describe pagination or exact response structure, but the schema covers limit and properties, so no critical operational detail is missing.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond implying traversal and grouping, which is sufficient but not exemplary given full 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('entities connected to this one'), and the output structure ('grouped by relationship type'). It also names representative relationship types, making the tool's role distinct from siblings like aleph_get_entity.

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 phrase 'This is how you walk a network' gives a clear when-to-use signal, and the explanation that relationships are entities helps an agent understand why it must use this tool rather than looking for plain fields on a record. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but the intended traversal use case is clear.

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