focus

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does state 'Read-only', default exclusion of type-only edges, and extra sqlglot lineage columns. It does not describe ordering, missing-node behavior, or the overall returned edge structure, leaving gaps for a query tool with no output schema.

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 front-loaded and very short: scope first, then lineage-column nuance, filtering default, and safety. Dense graph terminology ('sqlglot lineage edges') adds information without wasted prose.

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-query tool with five documented parameters and no output schema, it explains scope, filtering default, lineage columns, and read-only status. It still leaves the return shape largely implicit—such as how incoming and outgoing edges are separated—so an agent lacks full context for interpreting results.

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 the input schema already documents node, limit, max_bytes, workspace, and include_type_only. The description only restates the include_type_only default and otherwise adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.

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 the resource and operation as 'incoming and outgoing edges of one node with types', and distinguishes the lineage-column behavior from get_graph/arch_snapshot. It does not use an explicit verb and does not position itself against all siblings such as reaches or impact, so clarity is strong but not fully sibling-differentiating.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting one node and contrasts the lineage-column output with get_graph/arch_snapshot, which helps select it when columns are needed. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or direct routing versus reaches, impact, search, or affected_tests.

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