kg_onboarding_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description has full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a non-destructive read operation ('generate'), but does not explicitly state whether it modifies the graph, requires permissions, or has side effects. Minimal transparency leaves the agent guessing.

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 sentence, but it is vague and omits critical information. It does not earn its place because it fails to convey how to use the tool effectively. True conciseness would include parameter context or usage hints.

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 has 2 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the parameters or the output format, and the presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing invocation guidance.

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 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for the two parameters ('output_path' and 'graph_path'). Neither the purpose nor formatting of these parameters is clarified, leaving the agent without necessary invocation details.

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 clearly states the action ('Generate') and the resource ('human onboarding guide (entry points, hubs, domains) from the graph'). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'kg_render' or 'kg_lint', which focus on different outputs. However, it could explicitly differentiate from other kg tools that also generate content from the graph.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'kg_render_domain' or 'kg_info' might overlap, but no comparison is provided.

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