validate_knowledge_dag

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 mentions validation but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, or what the return value looks like. The agent cannot infer side effects or error behavior from the description alone.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists specific checks without any fluff. It is concise and efficient, with every word contributing to the purpose.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or whether it throws errors. It does not. It also fails to mention that session_id is required and what it represents. The description is incomplete for a validation tool that likely returns diagnostic information or raises exceptions.

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 must compensate. However, the description does not mention the session_id parameter at all. The agent is left to guess that session_id identifies the DAG to validate, which is not explicitly stated. This is a critical gap for a required parameter.

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 validates a stored DAG and lists specific validation checks (cycles, dangling edges, self-loops, isolated nodes). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like get_knowledge_edges, which merely retrieves data. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies this tool should be used to check DAG integrity, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention that validation should follow saving nodes/edges or that it is a read-only check. Usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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