sf_graph_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It suggests a read-only navigation tool but never explicitly states this or covers return format, error behavior, pagination, or other side effects. It essentially describes purpose, not behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with the key concept, and uses a clear second sentence to list capabilities. It omits the 'search' action, but the text is appropriately concise and free of filler.

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?

This is a five-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, and the description only highlights four capabilities, leaving the 'search' action unsupported. It gives no hints about return values or action-specific combinations, though the schema fills in parameter meaning. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent navigating complex graph queries.

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 schema describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, including an enum for actions and specific examples for nodeId, service, and namespace. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage; the description adds no further parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides adequate semantics.

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 identifies a clear domain ('Salesforce Knowledge Graph') and lists four concrete operations: finding related docs, exploring namespaces, discovering service categories, and getting full context. This indicates a distinct graph-navigation resource, though it omits the 'search' action present in the schema and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools.

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?

The description implies usage context by naming scenarios like exploring namespaces and service categories, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as sf_search or sf_semantic_search, nor does it state any exclusions. The multi-action enumeration provides some context but stops short of clear alternatives.

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