read_graph

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

The description correctly indicates a read-only operation, which is the primary behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not disclose potential performance implications for large graphs or guarantee idempotency. It is transparent about the basic aspect but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is concise and to the point, but could be slightly expanded to include additional context without breaking conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the minimal description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention what the output contains (e.g., all entities, relations, observations) or potential data volume. With siblings and no annotations, more context would improve completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none to describe.

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 'read' and the resource 'the entire knowledge graph', which is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like search_nodes or open_nodes. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the returned graph, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_nodes for targeted queries or get_memory_status for summary. The description lacks context for appropriate usage or when not to use it, such as for large graphs that may be slow to retrieve entirely.

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