Traverse the vault graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns nodes and edges, supports depth and direction limits, and includes a cap for large vaults. It lacks an explicit statement that the tool is read-only, but the verbs 'walk' and 'returns' imply no side effects.

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 concise, consisting of two tightly written sentences. It front-loads the purpose, uses inline code formatting for parameters, and every sentence contributes essential information without 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?

While the description covers key behaviors and usage, it lacks a detailed output structure description, especially since no output schema is provided. It only says 'returns nodes and edges' without specifying the format or whether the starting note is included. This gap reduces completeness for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 60%, and the description adds meaning by explaining the direction parameter values and the role of max_nodes. It does not elaborate on depth or include_snippets beyond what the schema provides, but the added context for direction and capping compensates.

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 purpose: walking the link graph from a starting note, returning nodes and edges. It uses a specific verb 'traverse' and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_backlinks or search_vault by focusing on graph traversal.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each direction value (both, forward, backward) and mentions capping with max_nodes. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the distinction clear.

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