brain_traverse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only 'walk/view' operation and describes multi-hop behavior, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, mentions no permissions or side effects, and does not describe return format or performance costs.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then usage guidance, then a contrast. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The purpose and usage are clear, and all parameters are documented in the schema. However, with no output schema, the description remains vague about what the tool actually returns; 'whole neighbourhood' is evocative but not precise about the data shape, which is a notable gap for an agent invoking it.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter details, but the schema already sufficiently explains depth, follow, maxNodes, and the identifiers, so no extra compensation is needed.

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's function: it walks the graph plusieurs hops out from a thought, making it a traversal tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting 'viewing a thought shows one hop only', so the agent knows this tool is for multi-hop exploration.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Call it when you need to see the whole neighbourhood', providing a clear when-to-use directive. It also contrasts with the single-hop viewing alternative, giving a practical exclusion and implicit alternative.

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