Get SPOKE Knowledge Graph Schema (compact)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is derived live from the database, robust to new/renamed labels, small, and cached. It stops short of describing exact response size or cache TTL, but the caching and liveness disclosure is a meaningful addition.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, followed by liveness/caching caveat and usage routing. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully characterizes the return value (node labels with counts, edge directory with counts and cost flags) and the caching/liveness behavior. Combined with complete parameter coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the single 'refresh' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces this by stating the result is 'small and cached,' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 3 baseline 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 and resource ('Return a COMPACT, curated map of the current SPOKE graph') and enumerates exactly what the map contains: node labels with counts and a Source->REL->Target edge directory with counts and cost flags. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like query_spoke or resolve_entity, which it names as downstream 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-reread guidance: 'call it ONCE near the start of a task, then rely on resolve_entity + query_spoke.' It also names a concrete use case ('Use the edge_directory to pick the exact relationship type... before writing Cypher') and implies the exclusion (don't re-call repeatedly; use refresh only if needed).

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