explore_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns specific outputs (related documents, shared topics, Mermaid subgraph), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that likely queries a knowledge graph, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and output. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 has an output schema (which should document return values), the description adequately covers the basic purpose and output types. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it could benefit from more behavioral context and parameter guidance to be fully complete for a knowledge graph query tool.

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 compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. The description implies 'query' is used to specify the document or concept, but doesn't explain format or constraints. It doesn't mention 'top_k' at all. This provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema's basic structure, meeting the baseline for partial compensation.

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 action ('Show connections') and resource ('specific document or concept in the knowledge graph'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_similar', 'topic_map', or 'knowledge_graph' that might also explore relationships, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_similar' or 'topic_map'. It mentions the output includes 'related documents, shared topics, and a focused Mermaid subgraph', but this doesn't help the agent decide when this tool is appropriate compared to other exploration tools in the sibling list.

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