knowmind_schema

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

Annotations only cover the read-safe profile, but the description adds the deprecation lifecycle (removal date, unchanged behavior until then) and the authorization requirement ('read scope suffices'), which annotations cannot express. It also confirms idempotent stable answers via 'keeps answering unchanged'.

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 deprecation warning is front-loaded, followed by what it returns and when to call it. Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information with no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the payload shape (edge types plus subject/object classes and usage explanations) and the precondition for calling it correctly. Nothing needed to invoke it is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the call needs no arguments, which is implicit in the empty schema.

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 the resource precisely: the tenant's relation catalogue, every allowed edge type with subject/object classes and usage explanations. It also names the exact replacement sibling (knowmind_get_schema), so an agent can distinguish this legacy alias from its successor without opening a schema.

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 routes the agent: use knowmind_get_schema instead, and call this before building edges with knowmind_link to pick the right predicate. Both the when-to-use and the named alternative are stated rather than implied.

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