rtfm_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns graph neighbors and hints at scoping via relation types, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether traversal is immediate only, whether results are ordered or limited, whether filtering is optional, or any side effects (though this appears read-only). The lack of annotation support leaves room for ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes: the verb, the resource, the graph-neighbor scope, and the enumerated relation types. This is model conciseness.

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 read-style tool with 100% parameter schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose but leaves gaps: no default behavior for 'direction' or 'relation_type' is stated, no output format is described, and no distinction from sibling tools is provided. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the result shape or default behavior 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 three parameters. The description adds a small amount of context by listing relation types in prose, but it does not meaningfully enrich the semantic understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Show'), a resource ('graph neighbors of a file'), and enumerates the relation types (imports, links, includes, citations). It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool rtfm_expand, which may have a similar graph-expansion role.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rtfm_expand or rtfm_context. The description implies use when needing neighbor information, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose among siblings.

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