query_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds only the return-shape note ('relevant nodes and edges as text context'), with no mention of token budgeting behavior, traversal cost, or scoping defaults beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and traversal modes. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is thin and could carry more useful behavioral context in the same length.

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?

With annotations covering safety and the schema fully documenting all 7 parameters, the description's main gap is usage guidance against numerous overlapping graph siblings. It is adequate to invoke correctly but does not resolve sibling-selection ambiguity.

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% and every parameter (mode, repo, as_of, depth, question, token_budget, context_filter) is documented in the schema itself. The description's 'using BFS or DFS' merely restates the mode enum, adding no syntax or format guidance beyond structured fields, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb (Search) and resource (knowledge graph), and identifies two traversal modes. It clearly implies retrieval of relevant nodes/edges, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling graph tools like get_node, get_neighbors, or shortest_path, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this broad search tool versus the many targeted graph siblings (get_node, get_neighbors, get_community, shortest_path). The BFS/DFS mention is a mode choice, not a when-to-use rule, and no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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