Enhanced Knowledge Graph Memory Server

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 the tool finds 'all paths' with a 'maximum depth', but doesn't explain performance implications (e.g., computational cost for large graphs), output format (e.g., list of paths, cycles), error conditions, or rate limits. For a path-finding tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary words. Every part ('Find all paths', 'between two entities', 'up to a maximum depth') contributes essential information, making it appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 path-finding in graph contexts, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address output structure (e.g., format of returned paths), performance considerations, or error handling. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured safety or output hints, more contextual detail is needed to guide effective use.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying path traversal between entities. It doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., how 'direction' and 'relationTypes' affect results) or provide examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 purpose: 'Find all paths between two entities up to a maximum depth'. It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('paths'), and scope ('between two entities up to a maximum depth'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_shortest_path', which handles a similar domain but with a different optimization goal.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'find_shortest_path' (for single optimal paths) or 'get_connected_components' (for broader connectivity analysis), nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection.

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