Traverse the Knowledge Graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral detail by specifying that it returns both outgoing and incoming edges with relationship types, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 two sentences: the first states the core behavior concisely, and the second gives concrete usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 existing output schema, annotations, and sibling context, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and differentiates it from siblings. The output schema handles return structure, so no additional return details are needed.

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 coverage is 67% (slug and locale are described; domain is not). The description does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema already provides meaningful descriptions for most parameters. Therefore the description adds little beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('traverse') and resource ('knowledge graph'), and details that it returns both incoming and outgoing neighbors with relationship types. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_* and list_* tools by focusing on relationships between units rather than retrieving a single unit or listing all units.

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 explicitly says to use this after a get_* call to widen an answer with adjacent units, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficiently specific to differentiate it from alternatives.

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