hub_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return payload ('nodes, edges, and dangling links') and the edge keying mechanism. It does not mention truncation behavior (which is in the schema only), permissions, or other side effects, but for a read-only query tool this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by key behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 graph query tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it specifies the return types (nodes, edges, dangling links) and the available filters. It could go deeper into edge semantics, but the schema covers parameter details and the overall purpose is clear.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'filter by project or type' which aligns with the schema, but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 function: it provides a typed relationship graph across projects and resources, showing dependencies and deployments. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on relationships rather than individual records, and explains the edge structure via frontmatter links.

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 when to use it (when you need relationship data) and mentions filters by project or type. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focused description makes its use case clear.

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