explore_graph

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's added value is the conceptual difference between a query-free traversal and a query-ranked search, but it says nothing about result volume, limits, or authorization beyond what the schema states.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the mode contrast is front-loaded after the core purpose statement. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and both union branches of the input are explained at a conceptual level. It is nearly complete; only limit/pagination behavior and any authorization prerequisites are left implicit in the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already carries documentation (mode consts, limit bounds, UUID formats, docIds 1-50, query max length). The description merely restates the mode/query relationship, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 (explore) and resource (graph relations) plus the origin of the data (readable seed documents). The two operating modes are named and contrasted, which makes the tool easy to tell apart from the CRUD-oriented siblings, though it never explicitly notes that it is the only graph tool among them.

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?

Gives clear mode-selection conditions: neighbors for a single document with no query, search for one or more seed IDs with optional query text. It does not address when to prefer this tool over read_document or find_documents, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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