get_subgraph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly describes the return shape ({nodes, edges}) and field semantics (id, depth, source, target, relation), giving the agent a concrete behavioral contract. It does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, but 'Get' and 'visualization' strongly imply a query operation.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences deliver the purpose first and then the return contract. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 visualization-focused subgraph query, the description supplies the essential return contract and center concept, while the schema covers parameters and constraints. It omits traversal-direction or cycle-handling details, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 already documents both parameters (fact_id, max_depth) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'centered on a fact' and node 'depth' echo the parameters but add no new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific resource ('subgraph centered on a fact'), a clear verb ('Get'), and a purpose ('for visualization'). It distinguishes itself from generic graph tools like graph_traverse by emphasizing the fact-centered focus, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

'For visualization' provides some context for when to use this tool, but the description does not mention alternative tools like graph_traverse or get_related, nor does it state conditions that should route the agent elsewhere. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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