subgraph

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

The description discloses key behavior: it extracts an induced subgraph (i.e., preserves edges among selected nodes) and stores it as a new graph, implying non-destructive operation. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention error handling, whether an existing new_graph is overwritten, or validation of node existence.

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?

One sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with the main action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core concept and non-destructive nature. It lacks explicit return value information, but the operation is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap.

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 description implicitly maps parameters: 'graph' is the source, 'nodes' are the selection set, and 'new_graph' is the destination. With 0% schema coverage, this is helpful but still leaves parameter types and constraints unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('induced subgraph') with a clear outcome ('store it as a new graph'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_nodes by emphasizing the creation of a new graph, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_nodes or merge_graphs. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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