get_knowledge_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List' (implying read-only) and enumerates edge types; it does not mention session scoping, return structure, or pagination behavior.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the edge taxonomy in parentheses. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter list call this is close to adequate: the verb and edge types tell the agent what will happen. However, with no output schema or annotations, it does not explain session scoping or return shape, so some inference remains.

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% and the description never mentions session_id. The single parameter's name and schema title are self-explanatory, so the gap is minor, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the structured 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?

The description opens with the imperative 'List' and identifies the resource 'knowledge edges' with four concrete edge types. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like save_knowledge_edges (write operation) and get_knowledge_nodes (different resource).

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 gives no condition for when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives such as save_knowledge_edges or validate_knowledge_dag. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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