graph_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the return payload (origin categories, buffer configuration, connection counts) and implies a read-only operation, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or the cost of enumerating all nodes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return contents and purpose. No filler, though the third sentence is somewhat redundant with the second.

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 does the work of summarizing the return shape, which is genuinely helpful. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only pagination/volume behavior is left unstated.

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?

There is a single optional parameter at 100% schema coverage, whose description already documents the URL formats and the AIMDB_CONNECT fallback. The description adds nothing about the endpoint parameter, so the schema does all the work and 3 is the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get all nodes in the dependency graph') and clarifies that 'nodes' means records with metadata. It is clear enough to distinguish from graph_edges and graph_topo_order by implication, but 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?

'Useful for understanding database topology and data flow' is a purpose statement, not a when-to-use rule. There is no guidance on when this should be preferred over graph_edges, list_records, or graph_topo_order, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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