task_graph

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', describes the traversal direction, and reveals non-obvious outputs such as lifecycle validity and unresolved references. It omits depth behavior and error semantics, but the disclosed information is meaningful and accurate.

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 appropriately short and well structured: a one-word safety statement, then the core behavior, then the output summary. Every sentence contributes unique information and nothing is redundant.

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 gives a solid high-level picture but is not fully complete for autonomous invocation. There is no output schema or annotation support, and the description does not cover depth semantics, project scoping, or how task_graph differs from the many related relationship/hierarchy tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it only indirectly hints at taskId via 'around one task'. It does not explain projectId, the meaning of depth, how depth interacts with traversal, or what each returned graph element represents. Thus the description fails to rescue the missing parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('traverses') and a clear resource ('typed incoming and outgoing task relationships around one task'). It also concretely names the outputs: nodes, edges, lifecycle validity, and unresolved references. This distinguishes it well from sibling mutating tools like set_task_lifecycle or update_task.

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 read-only, graph-traversal wording implies use when inspecting task connectivity, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it, when not to use it, or how it relates to similar tools such as get_task_hierarchy or relate_task. The usage context is inferable, not stated.

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