Project Tessera

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 output format ('Mermaid diagram') and default values for parameters, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or how the graph is generated (e.g., algorithm, data sources). This is a significant gap for a tool with complex functionality.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details in a concise list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (building knowledge graphs) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and some parameters but lacks behavioral details like permissions or limitations, which are critical for such a tool. With no annotations, this leaves gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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. It adds meaningful context for 'scope' (explaining 'project' vs. 'all') and 'max_nodes' (default and purpose), but does not cover 'query' or 'project' parameters. Since 2 out of 4 parameters are explained, this partially compensates for the schema gap, though not fully.

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 with specific verbs ('Build a knowledge graph') and resources ('from indexed documents'), specifying what it shows ('relationships between concepts, decisions, and entities') and what it returns ('a Mermaid diagram of the document relationships'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'topic_map' or 'explore_connections' by focusing on document-based relationship visualization.

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 implies usage through the mention of 'scope' (project vs. all) and 'max_nodes', suggesting when to adjust parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'topic_map' or 'explore_connections'. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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