Enhanced Knowledge Graph Memory Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose what happens if the entity has no parent (e.g., returns null, error), permissions required, rate limits, or output format. 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, but this isn't explicitly confirmed, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on error handling, return values, and practical usage, making it insufficient for an AI agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 tool description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'entityName'. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid entity name (e.g., format, constraints) or provide examples, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Get the parent entity of an entity' clearly states the action (get) and target (parent entity), but it's somewhat vague about what 'entity' refers to in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_children' and 'get_ancestors' by focusing on the immediate parent, but doesn't specify the domain (e.g., graph nodes, database records).

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 like 'get_ancestors' (which might return multiple ancestors) or 'get_root_entities' (for top-level entities). The description implies usage for retrieving a direct parent, but lacks explicit context or exclusions, such as whether it works for root entities (which have no parent).

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