get_topic_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It communicates that the tool is a read operation returning relationship data, but it does not disclose the output shape, graph depth, node/edge semantics, or whether any filtering or pagination applies.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's function.

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?

The definition is minimally viable for a one-parameter read tool, but the lack of an output schema and any annotation means the description should say more about what the returned graph actually contains. An agent can invoke it, but may be uncertain about how to interpret the result.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the required 'topic' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about how the topic slug is used to scope the graph, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('topic graph'), and the core purpose ('showing relationships between topics'). This distinguishes it from list-style siblings like get_topics or get_all_topics, though it doesn't explicitly name what it is not.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need the graph of topic relationships rather than a flat list. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this over closely related siblings such as get_related or get_ref_topic_links.

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