get_community

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope fact that the whole community is returned, and says nothing about truncation or how token_budget interacts with this bulk retrieval.

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?

One sentence, eleven words, with the verb and the identifying parameter front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is part of why other gaps remain.

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?

A 4-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description ideally would sketch what a returned node looks like or whether results are truncated. It conveys the retrieval scope but leaves the agent without the notion of a community or the shape of the response.

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 including repo, as_of and token_budget is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes community_id, adding no format or indexing detail beyond the schema's '0-indexed by size' note. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get all nodes in a community by community ID.' An agent can tell it retrieves a full community's membership rather than a single node (get_node) or an adjacency list (get_neighbors). It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or clarify what a 'community' represents.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. With siblings like get_node, get_neighbors, query_graph and god_nodes, the agent must guess whether a community lookup is the right entry point. Usage is only implied by 'by community ID'.

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