get_document_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about what content is surfaced (feature tree, dependencies, errors, TNP warnings) and the compact-vs-full properties tradeoff. It does not mention graph size, traversal depth, or performance characteristics for large documents.

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 payload summary, then a short Args block with one line per parameter. The Args lines partly duplicate the schema titles, but the added meaning justifies the length and nothing is padded.

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?

Only two optional parameters and an output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out; both parameters are explained and the content scope is enumerated. What is missing is routing guidance relative to the diagnostic-heavy sibling set, which matters for an agent choosing among several inspection tools.

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 carry the load, and it does: doc_name's empty-string-equals-active-document convention is non-obvious semantics no schema field conveys. include_properties is explained as a compactness/verbosity tradeoff with its default restated, which meaningfully guides the caller.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Inspect") plus an enumerated resource scope: feature tree, dependencies, error messages, UI edit state, and TNP warnings. That is far more informative than the bare name get_document_graph, though it never distinguishes itself from diagnostic siblings such as get_sketch_diagnostics, get_console_output, or explain_freecad_error.

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?

Provides no when-to-use framing and names no alternatives, even though siblings like get_selection, get_console_output, and explain_freecad_error overlap in diagnostic intent. The only guidance is parameter-level (empty doc_name uses the active document), not situational.

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