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 'gets statistics' but doesn't specify whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, if it's computationally intensive, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely provides summary data.

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: 'Get statistics about the knowledge graph'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's likely complexity (providing graph statistics) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned, their format, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate given the empty schema, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of 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 tool's purpose as 'Get statistics about the knowledge graph', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'statistics', but doesn't detail what types of statistics (e.g., node count, edge density, size metrics) or distinguish it from siblings like 'get_centrality' or 'get_connected_components' that also provide statistical insights.

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. With siblings like 'get_centrality' (for centrality metrics) and 'get_connected_components' (for component analysis), there's no indication whether this tool is a general summary or serves a specific statistical role, leaving usage unclear.

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