query_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it performs a search and returns concepts and relationships, but it does not disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The behavior is described at a high level without operational details.

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, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not separate purpose, usage, or parameters. While brief, it omits valuable information that could be included without significant length.

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 three parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that likely defines return structure, the description fails to explain how parameters behave or what the output represents beyond vague 'concepts and relationships'. It is incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (question, depth, token_budget). The agent receives no semantic guidance on how these parameters influence the search, leaving it to infer from defaults or names alone.

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 searches a 'Gonka documentation knowledge graph' and returns 'relevant concepts and their relationships'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_node (fetch a single node) or get_neighbors (adjacent nodes), though the exact scope of 'knowledge graph' could be more precise.

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 get_node, get_neighbors, or shortest_path. There is no mention of prerequisites, context where this tool is preferred, or when it should be avoided.

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