hebbrix_graph_query

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context (bi-temporal querying, graph hops). However, it doesn't mention whether the tool is read-only or if any side effects exist, though the query nature implies safety.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core behavior, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence contributes either to what the tool does or how it differs from an alternative.

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?

For a graph traversal tool, the description covers the essential behavior, limits, and the main alternative. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. It falls short only in not detailing all filter parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains depth and timestamp semantics but leaves collection_id and relation_type unexplained. The 'entity' parameter is self-evident from the tool name and description, but the others are not fully clarified.

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 and resource: 'Traverse the knowledge graph OUT FROM a named entity to find its relationships and facts.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool hebbrix_ask, which answers prose questions, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly directs users to hebbrix_ask for free-text questions and clarifies that this endpoint is for known entities. It also gives usage constraints like depth range (1-5) and timestamp use, providing clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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