get_action_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well by explicitly saying 'Read' and by disclosing that script source is omitted by default due to potential size or sensitivity. This is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond a simple read statement, though it does not cover auth, rate limits, or side effects—which are less critical for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining an important default behavior and its rationale.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape, and the description covers the core purpose and the script-source default. However, with no annotations and no explanation of optional command_id/idempotency_key semantics or routing among sibling graph tools, some of the contract is left for the agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate for the five parameters. It mentions 'optional values or script source', which maps to include_values and include_script_source, but it leaves command_id and idempotency_key semantically unexplained, and their schema titles are minimal.

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 first sentence has a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one Action Graph'), and explicit contents ('nodes, edges, state, and optional values or script source'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_action_graphs or get_action_graph_status without needing extra text.

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?

The description makes the tool's scope clear: full graph retrieval rather than listing or status-only queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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