Ingest Hosts to Knowledge Graph

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

The description's claim to 'push it into the epistemic-graph KG' suggests a write operation, contradicting the annotation readOnlyHint=true. Annotations indicate no modifications, while the description implies data ingestion. This is a clear annotation contradiction, lowering the score to 1.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second providing behavioral detail. Every word is necessary, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists and schema coverage is high, the description covers the main action and best-effort behavior. However, it fails to explain the group parameter's role and does not differentiate from sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent choosing among related 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's description of the 'group' parameter; it omits explaining its role in attaching hosts to a host group.

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 states a specific action: 'List the managed SSH inventory and push it into the epistemic-graph KG.' This clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like tm_inventory or tm_hosts, which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

The description mentions 'Best-effort: no-ops cleanly when no KG engine is reachable,' which implies safe usage but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like tm_inventory for direct inventory listing or tm_hosts for host management. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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