code_graph_walk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses read-only behavior, deterministic ordering (alphabetical per hop), and specific edge types. It does not describe the return format or side effects, but these are less critical given the read-only nature.

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 zero filler. The key algorithm is front-loaded, followed by deterministic behavior and parameter clarification. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the traversal logic, determinism, and read-only safety, but omits parameter details and return expectations. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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?

Only the 'anchor' parameter is explained (symbol name or fqn). The remaining four parameters (app_id, db_path, hop_depth, max_tokens) receive no semantic explanation in the description. With 0% schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 performs a BFS traversal from an anchor symbol along import and inherit edges, with a token budget. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling graph tools like code_graph_search and code_graph_explain.

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 implies use for context gathering via BFS but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusion cases. No sibling tools are named as alternatives, so guidance is only implicit.

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