docgraph_context

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by warning about potential large responses and suggesting parameter adjustments (includeContent, maxContentBytes) to manage output size. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the primary purpose. The second sentence provides essential usage guidance and a warning about response sizes. No redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks detail on governance-awareness, cross-references, and output formats (covered in the schema but not reiterated). Some gaps remain for fully informing the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds limited new parameter information beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing includeContent and maxContentBytes in the size warning. Baseline is 3 for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'PRIMARY TOOL. Build relevant documentation context for a task or topic.' It uses a specific verb ('build') and resource ('documentation context'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool docgraph_node by advising to use that for a single known document.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use an alternative ('For a single known document, use docgraph_node instead') and provides advice on configuring parameters to avoid large responses. However, it does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools or mention when not to use this tool beyond that specific case.

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