graph_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does clarify what the operation yields by defining 'hub' and 'orphan' semantically. However, it says nothing about read-only behavior, cost, whether the graph is computed live, or pagination/limits on the returned results.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately defines both returned categories. There is no filler and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the qualitative category definitions are helpful. But the unexplained k parameter and the complete absence of usage guidance leave real gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call this.

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 0% for the single parameter 'k', and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell from either source whether k controls the number of hubs, orphans, or both, nor how it interacts with the default of 15.

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 names the specific resource (knowledge graph) and precisely defines its two output categories: hubs as notes with the most outgoing wiki-links and orphans as notes with no links. That makes it distinguishable in spirit from backlinks or broken_links, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus siblings like backlinks, broken_links, or list_notes, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case from the subject matter alone.

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