docgraph_graph

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

The description adds useful nuance for the trace operation (one-directional, ignores similarity/tag edges, 'no path' ≠ 'unrelated'), but fails to address the destructiveHint=true annotation, which implies side effects not mentioned. Annotations provide readonly/destructive flags, but the description does not clarify the destructive nature.

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 a single, front-loaded paragraph with a clear bullet-like list. Every sentence serves a purpose, no redundancy, and it efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (documents, paths, counts?), nor does it explain the destructive side effects indicated by annotations. Critical information about output format and behavioral implications is missing.

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% with parameter descriptions already present. The tool description does not add new information beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates the operation context. Baseline 3 applies due to 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 clearly states the tool is a document graph traversal facade and lists four specific operations (incoming, outgoing, impact, trace) with concise explanations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like docgraph_search or docgraph_similar.

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?

Each operation is described with when to use it (e.g., 'incoming — documents that cite/reference this document'), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives among the many sibling tools. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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