trace

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the hop definition and the fact that large nets are reported but not fully expanded. However, it does not cover permissions, side effects, return format, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation safety cues.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of output schema, zero annotation coverage, and four parameters with no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It omits return value details, error handling, and prerequisites. While it covers the core behavior, it leaves the agent unprepared for practical usage, such as interpreting results or handling edge cases.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It clarifies 'pin' (starting point) and 'depth' (max hops), but does not explain 'ref' (required) or 'project' (optional). 'Ref' is ambiguous and could be the component reference, which is critical for understanding the tool's usage. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 action ('walk connectivity from a pin outward') and its main constraint ('bounded by depth (max 3)'). It uses a specific verb and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'net' or 'power_tree' which likely have different scopes. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings.

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 implies usage context by mentioning the depth limit and behavior for large nets, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than direct.

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