Traverse CMDB Graph

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and openWorld, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: the BFS algorithm, returns nodes and edges up to a specified depth, and enforces limits (max depth 5, max nodes 1000). This provides context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 efficient and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function and algorithm, the second sentence gives use cases and key limits. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 params, no output schema) and strong schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: it describes the traversal approach, return content (nodes and edges), and constraints. It does not detail the exact response structure, but since no output schema exists, this is a minor omission rather than a critical gap.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, including defaults and limits. The description repeats some limits (e.g., max depth 5, max nodes 1000) but does not add additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. It neither harms nor significantly enhances parameter understanding, so baseline 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 states the tool traverses the CMDB relationship graph using breadth-first search, specifying the resource (CMDB graph) and the action (traverse). It also distinguishes this from sibling get_cmdb_relationships by emphasizing depth-based traversal, making its unique function clear.

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 names use cases (deep impact analysis, service mapping, understanding dependency chains), which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as when to prefer the simpler get_cmdb_relationships for direct relationships.

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