get_query_lattice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Currently tracked' and 'inspect' imply a read-only snapshot, but the description does not state whether this is a safe read, whether the graph is scoped to a run, whether results are paginated, or how large the lattice may be. For an introspection tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. Its compactness is a virtue, though it is slightly under-specified for the scope being described.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a single-parameter introspection tool the description omits parameter meaning and usage context, leaving it only minimally complete.

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% and the single parameter run_id has no title beyond 'Run Id' and no description. The description never mentions run_id or explains which run's lattice is returned, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 (inspect) and resource (all nodes and relation edges in the Query Lattice concept graph), which is concrete and distinguishes it from discovery siblings like expand_concepts or discover_communities. It falls short of naming which sibling it is preferred over, so an agent must infer its place in the graph-introspection family.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the many sibling tools (get_saturation, get_coverage, expand_concepts). The agent is left to guess under what circumstances inspecting the lattice is the right call.

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