graph_maintain

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions two of three operations (rebuild, compact) and lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or whether changes are reversible. The 'stats' operation is omitted entirely.

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 12-word sentence, very concise. However, it omits the 'stats' operation, making it slightly incomplete but still efficient.

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?

Despite simple tool with rich schema, the description lacks completeness: does not mention the 'stats' operation, prerequisites, or what happens during rebuild/compact. Overall insufficient context for a maintenance tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description fails to mention the 'stats' operation, which is only in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what is already in the input schema.

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 that the tool performs maintenance operations on the knowledge graph, specifically rebuild and compact. It differentiates from sibling tools like graph_search or graph_add_observation which focus on querying or adding data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites or context for choosing between operations like rebuild, compact, or stats.

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