activate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the algorithm (Personalized PageRank), domain-tuned edge weights, profile retuning effects, and mode output type. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: core function, algorithm, and key parameter variations (profile, mode).

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 complex graph activation tool with five parameters and an output schema, the description covers the algorithm, profile options, mode options, and budget. It does not detail output format beyond saying 'score table' or 'primed prose', but output schema handles that. Lacks comparison to sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the algorithm, how profiles retune weights, and that mode=prose returns primed prose for LLM context, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 the tool's purpose: spreading activation from seed nodes to find relevant nodes in a graph, using Personalized PageRank. It distinguishes from sibling tools like neighbours or locate by specifying the graph relevance approach.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like neighbours, locate, or flow. The description explains what it does but does not provide decision criteria or exclusions for alternative tools.

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