read_graph

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

The description explicitly states this is a read operation, implying non-destructive behavior. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to disclose key traits such as return format, potential size limits, or performance implications.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. Every part is essential, fitting the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose. However, it lacks context on operational impact (e.g., reading entire graph may be slow or large), which could be critical for an agent to decide wisely among siblings.

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?

There are no parameters, achieving 100% schema coverage trivially. The description adds no parameter info, but according to guidelines, zero parameters baseline is 4. No value beyond schema is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('entire knowledge graph'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, delete, or search parts of the graph. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 like search_nodes or open_nodes. The description omits any mention of potential costs or trade-offs (e.g., reading the entire graph may be expensive), leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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