hebbrix_graph_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral burden. It discloses that depth controls graph hops (1-5) and that timestamp enables bi-temporal queries. However, it does not mention what happens if both query and entity are provided, or if neither is. It implies a read operation without destructive effects, but lacks details on authorization or rate limits.

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 remarkably concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second elaborates on key parameters and modes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given that no annotations exist but an output schema is present, the description covers the core functionality: two query modes, temporal querying, and depth control. It does not explain the return format or error behavior, but with an output schema, that may be sufficient. The missing explanation for 'collection_id' is a minor gap. Overall, it is fairly complete for a query tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the baseline is low. The description adds meaning by explaining the 'query' and 'entity' parameters as alternative inputs, specifying 'relation_type' as optional, and clarifying that 'depth' controls graph hops (1-5). However, 'collection_id' is not explained, and the 'timestamp' parameter's format is mentioned but not the exact ISO format. The description provides moderate additional context beyond the schema.

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 that the tool queries a knowledge graph for relationships and facts, and specifies two modes: natural-language query or entity with optional relation_type. It also mentions temporal querying with an ISO timestamp. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like hebbrix_search and hebbrix_list.

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 explicitly outlines two usage modes (natural-language query or entity+relation_type) and when to use the timestamp parameter. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references, but the usage context is clear.

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