get_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'return[s]' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention that it has no side effects, does not mutate state, or any other behavioral traits. There is no mention of authentication, permissions, or consequences, which is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is so sparse that it omits necessary details, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Although an output schema exists and can document return values, the description still lacks context about parameter usage, edge cases, or how this tool fits into the workflow. With two parameters and zero semantic explanation, plus no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool. It leaves major gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and invocation requirements.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must explain parameter meaning. However, the description makes no mention of 'task_id' or 'depth' at all. It provides no context for what these parameters represent, how they affect the returned graph, or any constraints. This is a critical omission for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 returns a 'persisted dependency neighborhood around a task,' which conveys a specific resource and operation. It distinguishes from get_task (which likely returns task details) and submit_graph (which submits a graph) through the phrase 'dependency neighborhood.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without any context about scenarios, prerequisites, or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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