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 mentions 'Get the depth' but doesn't explain what 'depth' means (e.g., number of levels from root, specific metric), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors if the entity doesn't exist, or the return format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (hierarchy tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'depth' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely returns numerical or structured data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't add any details about 'entityName' (e.g., format, examples, constraints). However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the description implies it's for an entity but doesn't compensate for the lack of schema details, so a score of 3 reflects minimal adequacy given the simplicity.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('depth of an entity'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_ancestors' or 'get_descendants' which might provide related hierarchical information, but the core action is specific enough for basic understanding.

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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for checking hierarchy levels, how it relates to siblings like 'get_ancestors' or 'get_parent', or any prerequisites such as entity existence. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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