dakera_knowledge_graph

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It explains the mechanism (embedding similarity) but does not disclose side effects, persistence, permissions, or whether the graph is temporary or stored.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy: purpose, use case, and alternative. Perfectly structured.

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 no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., format of knowledge graph). It adequately covers parameters and differentiates from one sibling but could mention other related tools. Agent_id missing description is a minor 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 75%, with three parameters described. The tool description does not add new information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, and agent_id lacks a description in both schema and description.

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 tool builds a knowledge graph from a seed memory using embedding similarity, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool 'dakera_graph_traverse' for BFS traversal of existing graphs.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (explore concept connections) and when not to (BFS traversal of existing graph, pointing to alternative tool).

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