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 action ('Get') but doesn't describe what 'Get' entails—e.g., whether it returns a list, paginates results, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail on behavior is a significant gap, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 action and definition. Every word earns its place: 'Get' specifies the verb, 'all root entities' defines the resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the criteria. There's no redundancy or wasted text, 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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a read operation in a complex graph system with many siblings, more guidance would be helpful, though the minimalism is somewhat justified by the lack of parameters.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for zero parameters, as it doesn't add unnecessary detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 the resource 'root entities', with a specific definition of what constitutes a root entity ('entities without parents'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_parent', 'get_children', and 'get_ancestors' by focusing on entities lacking parents. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_connected_components' or 'get_subtree', which might also involve root-like entities in different contexts.

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 prerequisites, such as whether the graph must be loaded or indexed, or compare to tools like 'search_nodes' or 'list_saved_searches' that might retrieve entities differently. There's no explicit 'when-not' or alternative tool recommendation, leaving usage context implied at best.

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