read_graph

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions compression by default but does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it cover the behavior of limit or include_deleted parameters. Safety and side effects are not addressed.

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 very concise with two sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every sentence adds information with minimal waste, though it could be slightly expanded to cover all parameters without losing conciseness.

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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains only 3 of 5 parameters (tags, entity_types, compress) and does not mention limit or include_deleted. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but parameter coverage is insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains tags, entity_types, and compress, but omits limit and include_deleted. It adds value over the bare schema for three parameters, but fails to document two.

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 action 'Read' and the resource 'knowledge graph', specifying that it returns the graph compressed by default. While it distinguishes from write tools, it does not differentiate from other read tools like search_nodes or query_timeline.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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