compress_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'merging similar entities' which implies a potentially destructive mutation, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, impact on graph structure, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operational behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential 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?

Given the complexity of graph compression (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'compressing' entails in practice, how merged entities are handled, or what the tool returns. For a tool that likely alters graph structure, more context is needed to understand its full impact and usage.

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 100% description coverage, with clear definitions for 'threshold' and 'dryRun'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'similarity' entails or how 'dryRun' outputs differ. This meets the baseline score since the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 states the action ('compress') and resource ('graph') with a specific method ('merging similar entities'), which clarifies the purpose beyond just the name. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'merge_entities' or 'find_duplicates', leaving ambiguity about how this tool uniquely operates within the graph context.

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 'merge_entities' or 'find_duplicates', nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description implies a general graph compression task but offers no contextual boundaries for its application.

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