shadowgraph_retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known without description. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results include one-hop neighbours and 'a neighbour can appear with no content match of its own', which is non-obvious and affects how an agent interprets results. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Four short sentences, all informative, with the core operation front-loaded before the sibling comparison. The 'Reads only' sentence and the neighbour-without-match note each add a distinct fact; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only, idempotent, 7-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it defines the core behavior, distinguishes it from four relevant alternatives, and flags the non-obvious neighbour behavior. Return-value format is covered by the existing output schema, so nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and every parameter (kind, limit, query, offset, status, project, minConfidence) has its own detailed schema description. The tool description therefore does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters, and the baseline of 3 applies. It does add a small cross-reference by saying the query matches 'exactly as in shadowgraph_search', but the schema already carries the semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Retrieve records matching a content query together with their one-hop graph neighbours', which precisely identifies the tool's function and its unique feature. It also names four sibling tools and states what they do instead, making the differentiation immediate and unambiguous.

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 names the sibling alternatives (shadowgraph_search, shadowgraph_recall, shadowgraph_traverse, shadowgraph_context) and contrasts what each returns or does, so an agent knows when to pick this tool over each one. The phrase 'shadowgraph_search returns matches only' provides a concrete when-not signal, and 'shadowgraph_traverse walks from a known id' covers the main other entry point.

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