graph_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations: results are ordered by weight. It says nothing about scope, pagination limits, or how many nodes exist, but with annotations carrying the safety burden this is minimally acceptable.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the key ordering behavior is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely complete.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what a 'path graph node' contains or what the returned list looks like. For a tool with three parameters and no return-value contract, the description leaves the agent without enough context to interpret results confidently.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (limit, project, workdir) is already documented in the schema with defaults and Chinese explanations. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Chinese phrase states a verb and resource ('list path graph nodes by weight'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it does not differentiate this listing tool from its close siblings graph_node, graph_dependencies, or graph_knowledge, and the term 'path graph' is left undefined. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus graph_node, graph_dependencies, or graph_knowledge, and no prerequisites or context stated. The agent must infer selection purely from the name.

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