akb_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses BFS traversal with configurable depth and limit, implying a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it cover error handling or limits on concurrent requests.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence provides essential information about the tool's functionality and usage.

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 lack of output schema, the description explains the core behavior (BFS, subgraph vs full graph) but does not detail the output format (e.g., structure of nodes and edges) or edge cases like conflicting parameters.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two mutually exclusive usage modes and the BFS traversal behavior, which goes beyond the schema's parameter 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's purpose: retrieving a knowledge graph with nodes and edges. It specifies two distinct modes: subgraph via URI with BFS traversal, or full vault graph via vault name. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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 explicitly tells when to use each parameter combination: 'Provide uri to get a subgraph' and 'Provide vault (without uri) to get the full vault graph.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives.

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