cortex_inspect_graph

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. 'Queries' implies read-only behavior, but it does not explain temporal semantics, whether dependencies are direct or transitive, required permissions, side effects, or failure modes.

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?

Single sentence, directly front-loaded with the action and object, with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 description is too sparse for a specialized tool with no annotations and a complex concept like 'bi-temporal knowledge graph dependencies.' It lacks selection context, behavioral detail, and interpretation of the output, leaving the agent to guess important usage details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that entity_id refers to 'a code entity', which provides some meaning beyond the schema alone, but it gives no format, provenance, or expected identifier style.

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 states a specific verb ('Queries'), a specific resource ('knowledge graph dependencies'), and a scope ('for a code entity'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cortex_update_scratchpad and cortex_record_event.

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 when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tool routing is provided. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the brief description, and it is not told when to choose this over cortex_query_memory or cortex_check_error_loop.

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