enox_explore

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses key behavioral traits: returns all incoming and outgoing edges with node summaries, and that it reveals relationships, dependencies, and contradictions. This adds significant context beyond the input schema.

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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs and an example, with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 adequately explains return values (edges with summaries). It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter. Minor gap: no mention of side effects, permissions, or rate limits, but acceptable for a read-only exploratory tool.

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 sole parameter 'entity' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the overall description adds an example ('RFDB V2 engine') but no additional meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get all edges') and resource ('entity in knowledge graph'), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_neighbors' by focusing on full context and all connected edges.

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 when to use it ('understand full context'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'crawl_entity' or 'get_neighbors'. Usage context is implied but exclusion criteria are absent.

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