graph_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: bidirectional link traversal and that results include hop count and the concept each was reached through. It still omits traversal depth bounds and pagination 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the trailing 'with hop count and the concept each was reached through' is slightly clunky in phrasing.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of return shape, the description partially fills the gap by describing output metadata (hop count, path concept). But it leaves the limit parameter, traversal depth, and differentiation from graph_neighbors unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: 'a question or set of concepts' loosely maps to query and ids but never states this pairing explicitly, and 'limit' is entirely undocumented in both description and schema.

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 explains the tool returns concepts related to a question or concept set by traversing links bidirectionally, and mentions hop count and path metadata. However, it's a noun phrase without an explicit verb ('Find'/'Retrieve'), and it never names or contrasts itself with the obvious sibling graph_neighbors, leaving the boundary between the two to inference.

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 implies a use case ('to a question or set of concepts') but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. With graph_neighbors and concept_expand in the sibling list, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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