review_digest

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses that the tool returns pending relationships grouped by type, includes entity names and source context, and mentions that rejected patterns are remembered. It implies read-only behavior without explicitly stating safety.

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 concise at 4 sentences, with a clear structure: purpose, usage, return details, and user action. It is front-loaded with the main 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 description explains the return format (grouped by type with entity names and source context) and user interaction. It adequately covers the tool's functionality given the single simple parameter and existing output schema.

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%, yet the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter or its function. The parameter is simple but the omission means the description adds no value beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'pending knowledge graph connections'. It explicitly mentions presenting for approval/rejection, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'suggest' or 'review_connection'.

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 includes an explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' statement indicating when to use it (present discovered connections for approval/rejection). It does not specify when not to use or mention alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and sufficient for most cases.

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