graph_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns connected entities and relationship types within a depth, implying a read-only query. However, it does not disclose side effects, limits, or required permissions.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a usage hint. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise by integrating the usage hint into the main sentence.

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?

With 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotation support, the description fails to provide adequate context for parameter usage. Although an output schema exists, the lack of parameter documentation makes the tool incomplete for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides no explanation for any of the 5 parameters (entity, depth, rel_types, direction, min_weight). The agent must infer meanings from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 that the tool queries the knowledge graph to find connected entities, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'entity_map' or 'related', which also explore 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?

The description explicitly provides a 'USE THIS WHEN' condition, guiding the agent to use the tool for understanding relationships and dependencies. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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