read_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states return contents but omits safety aspects (e.g., read-only nature), performance implications (potentially large result), or side effects. The term 'Read' hints at non-modifying behavior but is not explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word provides information.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks detail on return format beyond presence of IDs. It does not mention limits, pagination, or structure of entities/relations. Competes well with sibling complexity but incomplete without output schema.

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?

The only parameter 'category' is fully described in the schema (default, purpose). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads the entire knowledge graph and specifies what is returned (all entities and relations with IDs). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_nodes or list_categories which have narrower scope.

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 implies usage for a full graph read but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Sibling tools are provided externally but not referenced in the description.

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