build_graph

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the burden. It discloses that a person_sweep may be triggered if findings are absent, which is a key side effect, and specifies the return format (graph, GraphML, Cypher exports, summary stats). This goes beyond a simple 'builds a graph' statement.

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 and front-loaded with a clear purpose, then uses a conditional to explain workflow. The line break and indentation are a bit odd, but the content is efficient and includes necessary technical details.

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?

The description covers the high-level process, the decision branch with findings, and return value, which is useful. However, it omits important context like what 'depth' means, how consent is used, and how it fits with the sibling investigation tools beyond the person_sweep reference. Given the tool's complexity, this is adequate but not complete.

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?

With 11 parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description only clarifies one parameter: findings (as a list of Finding dicts from a prior sweep). It doesn't explain name, depth, consent, nicknames, or the other fields, leaving the agent to guess at their meanings and required formats.

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 'Build a provenance-stamped entity graph for a person,' clearly stating the tool's action and resource. It differentiates from siblings by explaining how it either uses provided findings or triggers a person_sweep, setting it apart from the other investigation 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 explains the conditional workflow: if findings are supplied, use them; otherwise a verified person_sweep runs first. This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool relative to a prior sweep, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to avoid.

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