graph_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses semantics of the return content (directed edges, source→transform→consumer flow), implying a read-only operation, but omits permissions, pagination, or size/volume characteristics of the graph.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and all three sentences are short. The second and third sentences partially overlap ('directed edges representing data flow' vs 'how data flows from sources through transforms to consumers'), so a little redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (directed edges and their data-flow meaning), which is the main thing an agent needs. It is slightly thin on how many edges or in what form, but complete enough for a simple read query.

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 100%, and the single endpoint parameter is fully documented in the schema (unix/serial URL formats, env fallback). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get all edges in the dependency graph') and clarifies the resource is directed edges representing data flow. It naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling graph_nodes and graph_topo_order by dealing with edges, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. With siblings like graph_nodes, graph_topo_order, and get_architecture in the same graph family, the agent gets no help deciding which to call for a given intent.

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