get_document_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action, but does not mention whether it is read-only, requires prior indexing (especially given siblings 'index_file' and 'index_project'), or has any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, it could include more information without becoming verbose.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not specify what nodes and edges are returned, whether pagination exists, or if there are performance implications. Given the complexity, the description fails to provide essential operational context.

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 coverage is 50% (projectPath has a description, documentId does not). The tool description adds no extra meaning to parameters; it does not explain what 'documentId' or 'projectPath' represent in the graph context. With low coverage and no additional context, the parameter semantics are poor.

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 'Get a document node/edge connections' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (document node/edge connections), indicating it retrieves graph relationships. It is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_document' (single document) and 'get_related' (related items). However, it could be more specific about the type of graph (e.g., dependency or citation).

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 like 'get_related' or 'explore'. There are no prerequisites or exclusion criteria mentioned. The description lacks context for situational use.

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