veritasgraph_get_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns the graph, which is insufficient. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential performance impacts for large graphs, or any side effects. The description lacks necessary behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb ('Return') and resource ('full knowledge graph'). It is concise, no filler, and every word adds value. It demonstrates optimal conciseness for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 outline what the return value includes. It states 'all nodes, edges, and stats', which is helpful but could be more detailed (e.g., format, structure, size limits). For a simple tool with no parameters, it is adequate but not fully complete. The agent knows it gets a full graph, but lacks specifics.

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 no parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter-level detail. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, as the schema covers all necessary information. The description correctly confirms the tool takes no arguments, aligning with the schema.

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 returns the full knowledge graph with all nodes, edges, and stats. It distinguishes from siblings like 'veritasgraph_clear_graph' (clears), 'veritasgraph_ingest_document' (adds), 'veritasgraph_query' (specific queries), and 'veritasgraph_search_entities' (entity search). The verb 'Return' and resource 'full knowledge graph' are specific and unambiguous.

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 when the entire graph is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for specific queries or small subsets) or reference siblings. The agent has to infer usage from the tool's name and general knowledge.

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