knowmind_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description reinforces the read-only nature and adds useful behavioral context: it is scoped to the tenant's graph, returns a catalogue, and 'read scope suffices'. There is no contradiction and it adds meaningful non-schema context.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, when to call it and why, and what scope conveys. It is front-loaded, specific, and free of 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 schema tool, the description is appropriately complete: it specifies the output content, its purpose, the tenant scope, and the read permission requirement. Agents have enough to invoke it correctly without more detail.

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 and an empty input schema, so no parameter-level semantics are needed. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description already explains what the returned data will contain.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Return the relation catalogue of this tenant's knowledge graph' with the exact content (allowed edge types, subject and object classes, usage explanations). This clearly distinguishes it from data-query siblings like knowmind_list_relations and knowmind_recall, since it returns schema rather than graph instances.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: call this before building edges with knowmind_link and use it to pick the correct predicate. The 'read scope suffices' note also sets permission expectations. It does not explicitly state when not to call it or contrast with alternatives like knowmind_list_relations, but the core usage context is strong.

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