knowmind_get_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond these by stating the authorization requirement ('Read scope suffices') and enumerating the return contents (edge types, subject/object classes, usage notes). It stops short of describing formatting or caching behavior, so not a full 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what is returned, when to call it, and the auth scope. The most important routing instruction (call before knowmind_link) is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, sequencing, auth scope, and the shape of the returned content. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without opening any other field.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is scoped implicitly to the caller's tenant ('this tenant's knowledge graph'), which is the only contextual input that matters here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the relation catalogue of this tenant's knowledge graph.' It further specifies the payload (every allowed edge type with subject/object classes and usage explanations), which distinguishes it from siblings like knowmind_link or knowmind_list_relations.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this before building edges with knowmind_link,' naming the exact alternative and the condition that selects it. The rationale ('pick the right predicate instead of the nearest-sounding one') makes the when-to-use reasoning unambiguous.

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