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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts for large subgraphs, error conditions, or return format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 retrieving a subgraph, no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the output looks like, how deep the subgraph goes, or any limitations, making it inadequate for confident tool invocation.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'entityName'. However, since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the description doesn't clarify what 'entityName' represents (e.g., format, examples, or constraints), missing an opportunity to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('entity and all its descendants as a subgraph'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_children', 'get_descendants', or 'get_ancestors', which also retrieve related entities, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 like 'get_children' or 'get_descendants'. It lacks context about use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.

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