query_temporal_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it queries the graph state at a time, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, or behavior when at_time is omitted.

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?

Description is extremely concise with two sentences. No redundant information, every word earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of a temporal knowledge graph query, the description is sparse. It does not explain the kind of connections returned, result structure, or limitations. Despite having an output schema, more context would improve usability.

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 single parameter at_time has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining it is an optional ISO timestamp for querying past state, which is helpful. However, it could clarify default behavior (e.g., current state) and format constraints.

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?

Description clearly states it queries a temporal knowledge graph to understand connections, which is an explicit verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_decisions or memory_search_context, which may also return connections.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or any tradeoffs compared to similar tools.

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