akb_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. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, idempotent, or discuss authentication or rate limits. It does explain the BFS traversal behavior via the 'hops' parameter, which adds partial transparency.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get a knowledge graph') and logically organizes the two usage modes and parameter details.

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 covers the two input modes and explains key parameters like 'hops'. However, since there is no output schema, the description could briefly mention the structure of the returned graph (e.g., 'returns JSON with nodes and edges'), though the stated 'nodes and edges' provides a high-level idea.

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%, yet the description adds significant value by explaining the mutual exclusivity of 'uri' and 'vault', and disambiguating 'hops' from 'akb_browse.depth'. This context goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 retrieves a knowledge graph with nodes and edges. It specifies two distinct modes: subgraph via 'uri' with BFS traversal, and full vault graph via 'vault'. This specificity differentiates it from sibling tools like akb_browse and akb_relations.

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 clear context on when to use each parameter combination ('Provide `uri`' vs 'Provide `vault`'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like akb_relations for relation-specific queries.

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