get_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. The description is silent on all behavioral aspects, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

While the description is short, this is under-specification, not conciseness. A concise description would pack meaningful information into few words; here, 'get edges' offers no substance and could mislead an agent into assuming it is a trivial operation. There is no structure or front-loading of key details.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, no annotations), a complete description would need to explain purpose, parameter usage, return format, and contextual relations to siblings. This description is entirely inadequate, offering nothing beyond a bare label. An agent has no basis to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description gives no explanation of any of the 10 parameters (e.g., repository_id, target_commit, from_node_ids). Parameter names alone in the schema are insufficient without context; the description must compensate but fails to do so. This is a critical gap for a tool with two required parameters.

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 'get edges' essentially restates the tool name with no elaboration on what edges are, what operation it performs, or how it differs from similar tools like node_batch_get or edge_batch_upsert. It is a near-tautology, providing minimal clarity beyond the name itself.

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 tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many related operations (e.g., get_nodes, edge_batch_upsert, traverse_graph), but the description does not explain the specific scenario for get_edges or any distinguishing use case. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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