Doco Traverse

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful interpretation semantics: status=dangling_* invalidates the target, evidence_freshness=stale requires re-confirming evidence, and projection_freshness=stale means the result is not a complete relationship graph. This kind of staleness/validity context goes well 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?

The description is one dense sentence that front-loads the primary action before the return summary and three status caveats. Every clause earns its place, though splitting the trailing semicolon-separated caveats into separate sentences or bullets would improve scannability; the Chinese-language description also sits alongside an English schema without issue.

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 read-only traversal tool with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what is returned and how to interpret dangling/stale flags. Minor gaps remain: pagination or traversal depth/limits are not mentioned, and no guidance connects this to doco_create_relation as the mutation counterpart, but the output schema likely covers return shape.

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 all three parameters (document_id, direction, predicate) are already documented in the schema. The description ties output concepts (forward/reverse relations, registered predicates) to the direction and predicate parameters but adds no new syntax or format detail, matching the baseline-3 expectation for high 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 and resource — traverse documents along explicit relationships — and enumerates what it returns (forward/reverse relations, registered predicates, source blocks, source versions). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like doco_get_tree, doco_read, doco_search, and especially doco_create_relation, which is the write counterpart.

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 qualifier 'explicit relationships' implies it is for relationship traversal rather than content reading or tree structure, giving some usage context. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it; with many nearby read tools (doco_get_tree, doco_outline, doco_search), explicit routing would help.

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