NebulaMind

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the graph structure (nodes/topics, edges/connections) but omits critical behavioral details: whether this returns the entire graph or a subset, approximate size/cost implications, whether the operation is idempotent/cached, or if 'astronomy' represents a filter or the complete system scope.

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?

Single efficient sentence with em-dash parenthetical. Front-loaded with verb and object. No repetition of tool name or schema details. Every clause adds value.

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?

Output schema exists (covering return structure), and with zero input parameters the description need not document inputs. However, for a potentially large-scale graph retrieval, it omits scope boundaries and whether this captures the complete knowledge state or requires pagination/handling constraints mentioned in the output schema.

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?

Zero parameters present. Per calibration guidelines, 0 params establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter context since no configuration is needed to invoke the tool.

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?

Clear verb 'Get' and resource 'astronomy knowledge graph'. Clarifies semantics by defining nodes as 'topics' and edges as 'connections'. Distinguishes from siblings like read_page and ask_question by describing a structural graph retrieval rather than content reading or Q&A, though could more explicitly contrast with read_page.

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 provided on when to use this versus read_page (which presumably reads article content) or list_pages. No mention of prerequisites, rate limits, or suitability for graph analysis versus browsing.

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