vault_get_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'retrieves the link graph' and mentions localization, which largely restates the schema. It does not disclose output format, graph representation, or any side effects/limitations beyond what the parameters indicate.

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 concise sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the localization detail efficiently.

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 retrieval tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the link graph contains, how nodes/edges are represented, or how the response_format parameter affects output, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, such as framing 'center' and 'depth' for graph traversal, but does not enrich parameter semantics further.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the link graph of a vault, using the specific verb 'Retrieves' and a specific resource. It also mentions localization around a center note with depth, which differentiates it from sibling tools like vault_get_backlinks or vault_get_related.

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 implies usage for whole-vault or localized graph exploration via the center and depth parameters, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like vault_get_backlinks or vault_get_related. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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