aethis_graph

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds material context the annotations lack: public showcase rulesets need no auth while rulebook graphs always require an API key (401 for anonymous callers). It does not, however, explain why idempotentHint is false for a pure read, which is the one behavioral oddity left unaddressed.

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?

A single dense paragraph with the core purpose and the either/or constraint front-loaded, followed by return shape and then auth caveats. It is efficient and well-ordered, though the return-shape sentence is long and could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, and it does so concretely ({ruleset_id|rulebook_id, slug, name, graph: {nodes, edges, sections, stats}, mermaid}) plus what display.sentence/routes/expr convey. Combined with usage and auth guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented there, including mutual exclusivity and the rb_* / slug formats. The description's "provide exactly one" restates the schema rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (ruleset-map graph) and explicitly names both input modes: a published ruleset via ruleset_id or a composed rulebook via rulebook_id. It also names the sibling it competes with (aethis_explain), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

"Use this to visualise or explain a ruleset's/rulebook's structure before or instead of aethis_explain" gives an explicit when-to-use and names the alternative tool. It also states the exclusivity rule ("provide exactly one") and the auth conditions per mode, leaving nothing to inference.

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