sd_get_graph_snapshot

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is already clear. The description adds that the snapshot is 'bounded' and 'versioned', which gives some additional context but does not elaborate on behavior such as what 'bounded' means or how versioning works. With annotations covering the core traits, the description provides modest added value.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It is efficient with no wasted words. However, it might be too brief to convey all necessary information, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue per se.

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 tool has three parameters (one required) and no schema-level descriptions, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain terms like 'bounded' or 'versioned', nor how the parameters affect the snapshot. Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks context for proper usage.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. However, the description does not mention any parameter (graph, limit, include_values) or their semantics. The parameters are somewhat self-explanatory from their names and types, but without any explanation, the agent lacks clarity on details like the structure of GraphRef or the effect of limit.

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 'Read a bounded versioned graph snapshot including explicit connections.' It uses a specific verb ('read') and resource ('graph snapshot'), and adds modifiers ('bounded', 'versioned', 'with explicit connections') that differentiate it from siblings like sd_get_active_graph or sd_get_node.

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 does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or provide any context for decision-making. Sibling tools exist for various graph operations, but no differentiation is offered.

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