get_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what data is included (links/backlinks/tag relationships) but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, pagination, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence in Korean that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it front-loaded and easy to parse despite the language difference.

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 graph data retrieval and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the graph data returns, how relationships are represented, what happens when parameters are omitted, or any limitations of the tool. For a graph query tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves too many unknowns.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain how 'center' and 'depth' interact or provide examples of valid values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose as 'retrieving page connection graph data' with specific components mentioned (links/backlinks/tag relationships). It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('page connection graph data'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_backlinks' which might overlap in functionality.

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 sibling tools like 'get_backlinks' and 'list_pages' available, there's no indication of when this graph retrieval tool is preferable or what specific use cases it addresses compared to those alternatives.

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