graph_graph_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the graph doesn't exist, or any side effects. The behavior is implied but not explicit.

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 very short (5 words), which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with '[graph]', but the brevity leads to ambiguity. Not every sentence earns its place because the single sentence lacks crucial information.

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?

Despite having an output schema (likely listing node names), the description does not mention the output format or what data is returned. In a server with many graph tools, this description fails to provide enough context to differentiate and use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'name' parameter at all, leaving its role (likely graph name) unclear. No added value beyond the schema's type definition.

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 states 'List all node names', but the required 'name' parameter is not explained. The prefix '[graph]' suggests context, but the purpose is ambiguous: does it list nodes for a specific graph or all nodes across graphs? The parameter contradicts 'all'.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like graph_graph_edges, graph_graph_ancestors, or graph_graph_add_node. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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