AxKnowledgeBase_private_knowledge_graph_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, that 'Only MATCH/RETURN is permitted,' and enumerates concrete constraints: alias properties, return the source paper, keep an explicit LIMIT, never select embedding_* or bulk Passage.text. This is strong disclosure of behavior beyond a generic 'read' label.

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 dense but well organized: purpose, sibling relationship, then syntax rules. It front-loads the core verb and resource, and every rule is actionable with an example. It is slightly long, but for a constrained query language the detail is justified and not padding.

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 complex Cypher tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential execution contract: graph target, allowed query form, result shape through the sibling reference, and schema discovery through get_knowledge_base_schema. It does not enumerate the exact row fields or mention auth/error behavior, but the reference to knowledge_graph_read fills the largest gap.

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%, so the schema already defines query and params; the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value for the query parameter by detailing valid query shapes and required conventions (aliasing, source paper, LIMIT, forbidden properties), moving it above baseline. It does not add anything about the optional params object, but the schema covers that.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a read-only Cypher query against the organization's private knowledge graph and return the rows.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by calling itself 'The private counterpart of knowledge_graph_read' and noting 'different graph.' An agent can identify this tool without needing to inspect sibling schemas.

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?

It gives clear context and names the relevant alternative ('private counterpart of knowledge_graph_read... different graph') and instructs the agent to 'call [get_knowledge_base_schema] first.' It does not explicitly spell out a when-not-to-use condition, but the private/public contrast and schema-first guidance make the intended usage clear.

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