Retrieve a concept's subgraph (prerequisites + dependents) up to N hops. Use this to traverse the knowledge graph.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hops | No | Traversal depth (1-5, default 3) | |
| domain | Yes | Domain to query | |
| concept | Yes | Exact concept label (e.g. 'Flex Credit', 'Lifetime Token Allocation') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It only says 'retrieve', implying read-only, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., large result sets, performance impact), authentication needs, or any constraints beyond what the schema covers.
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?
Two concise sentences: first defines the action, second states the use case. No redundant phrases, every word 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?
Tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the output format (e.g., nodes, edges), error conditions, or domain selection guidance. Adequate but leaves gaps.
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 clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds only 'up to N hops' which echoes the hops parameter. Minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3.
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?
Clearly states the tool retrieves a concept's subgraph (prerequisites and dependents) up to N hops. Distinguishes from siblings like get_prerequisites (which likely only gets prerequisites) and search_concepts (which searches, not traverses).
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?
Mentions 'Use this to traverse the knowledge graph' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like get_prerequisites, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: listing domains, searching concepts, getting prerequisites, and querying subgraphs. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_prerequisites, list_domains, query_ckg, search_concepts), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for exploring a knowledge graph. Each tool serves a clear need without redundancy or excessive specialization.
The set covers key discovery and traversal operations, but lacks a tool to retrieve detailed properties of a single concept without its graph neighbors. This is a minor gap for a complete read-only surface.
