knowmind_list_inferred

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the domain behavior it discloses: open relations do not feed derivation rules until confirmed, and read scope suffices for authorization. Useful context beyond the structured fields, though paging/volume behavior is not discussed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose before enumerating states and reasons; each sentence carries information. It is dense and packs several parenthetical definitions into one paragraph, which slightly slows scanning but wastes no words.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it explains per-relation state, reason, connected entries, source, evidence, and per-state counts. Combined with the sibling pointer and scope note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters (limit, offset, status), including ranges and enum values, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax, making the baseline 3 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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource+scope: relations awaiting a human decision, with their review state and reason. It implicitly separates itself from knowmind_list_relations by narrowing to inferred/pending items, though it never names that sibling to make the boundary explicit.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('review what the graph learned on its own') and names the companion tool that records the decision (knowmind_review_inferred). It does not state an explicit when-not or contrast against knowmind_list_relations for already-confirmed relations.

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