graph_context_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about side effects, required permissions, return format, pagination, or node/edge filtering behavior. The tool appears to be a read operation, but this is never stated.

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 extremely short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. For a tool with 14 parameters and no annotations, a single tautological phrase is grossly insufficient. It fails to front-load any operational 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?

The tool is complex (14 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations) and the description covers none of the necessary context: parameter semantics, expected output, relationship to sibling tools, or operational constraints. It is completely inadequate for an agent to call 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?

The schema has 14 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds zero information about their meaning. For example, 'depth', 'include', 'direction', 'edge_types', and 'stop_sub_kinds' are all undefined, leaving the agent to infer semantics purely from names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'graph context get' is a pure tautology that merely restates the tool name. It provides no verb-resource structure, no indication of what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves a subgraph for a commit), and no differentiation from siblings like code_context_get or traverse_graph.

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 like code_context_get or search_nodes. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided; an agent must guess the intended use case.

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