jambavan_graph_query

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

The description reveals behavioral traits: it uses extracted call/import edges and inferred mentions, and operates under a token budget. These details go beyond the schema. No annotations are present, so the description compensates well, though it could mention whether the query is read-only or has any side effects.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that pack essential information: purpose, constraint, prerequisite, and data source. No redundant words, and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It says 'find matching nodes and BFS neighbors' but does not specify the output format (e.g., list of node names, edges, or a graph structure). With sibling tools that might return structured reports, this omission could confuse an agent about the return type.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'BFS neighbors' and 'token budget,' which relate to query and budget parameters but adds little new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The instruction to call jambavan_index first is not about parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose: query the knowledge graph to find matching nodes and BFS neighbors within a token budget. It mentions 'Call jambavan_index first.' which distinguishes it from other tools like jambavan_graph_path or jambavan_graph_report by specifying its unique operation.

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?

It provides a clear usage guideline: 'Call jambavan_index first.' This sets up the prerequisite for using the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with sibling tools like jambavan_graph_path, but the context of BFS neighbors implies its specific use case.

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