get_doc_graph

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses the access requirement ('PRO+ plan') and hints at format options ('toon/json'), but does not describe the return payload, size limitations, or read-only nature beyond the verb 'Get'.

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, focused sentence that is easy to parse. However, the typo 'tooon' and ambiguous 'format toon/json' slightly reduce clarity, though the overall length is appropriate.

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 no-parameter, read-only graph accessor, the description provides the essential purpose and access plan. Yet it lacks details about what the graph contains (nodes/edges) or any limitations, which would be useful given no output schema. The 'Source of Truth' phrase helps, but completeness remains minimal.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since there is nothing to document. The 'format toon/json' mention could imply a format parameter, but the schema confirms no parameters exist.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('Source of Truth doc graph'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reindex_doc_graph (which mutates) and doc_neighbors (which returns a subset).

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 this returns the authoritative full graph but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like doc_outline or doc_neighbors. The 'PRO+ plan' note provides an access context but no exclusion criteria.

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