graph_graph_edges

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

The description indicates a read-only operation ('List all edges') with no side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is accurate but lacks additional context such as permissions required or any constraints like graph existence. The behavior is straightforward but minimally described.

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 a single sentence that is very concise and directly states the tool's purpose and output format. It is appropriately sized given the tool's simplicity, but it could be slightly improved by adding a brief explanation of the parameter within the description.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is adequate in explaining what the tool does and the output format. However, it lacks explicit parameter guidance and does not leverage the output schema to reduce the burden. The context is largely sufficient but has minor 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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'name' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explain the 'name' parameter; it only provides the tool's purpose. While the '[graph]' prefix hints that 'name' refers to the graph name, this is not explicit, and the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 lists all edges in the format [{from, to}], using the verb 'List' on resource 'edges'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like graph_graph_add_edge (adds edges) and graph_graph_nodes (lists nodes). However, it does not explicitly link the required parameter 'name' to the graph name, which is only implied by the '[graph]' prefix.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparison with related tools such as graph_graph_path or graph_graph_status. The description is purely functional without contextual decision support.

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