get_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool returns the full graph, implying a read-only operation. It does not describe return format or performance implications, but the behavior is straightforward and sufficiently disclosed for a simple getter.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by a specific usage tip. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does (returns full graph), what it includes (all nodes and edges), and when to use it (session start). The sibling context shows this is the only read tool, so the description is complete for its simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to convey. The schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, which is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb ('Return'), the resource ('full current graph'), and the scope ('all nodes and edges'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create_node, update_node, etc.) by indicating a read operation of the entire graph.

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 specifies when to use this tool: 'Use to re-orient yourself at the start of a session.' This provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though sibling tools are clearly mutation-focused, making the differentiation implicit.

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