graph_query_tool

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

With no annotations, the description alone must carry behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool reads stored graph data without re-extraction and mentions the Kameda O(1) index for reachability, which is informative. However, it does not explicitly confirm a read-only side-effect-free profile, mention permission requirements, or describe error behavior.

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, front-loads the core action, and lists query types compactly. Every sentence provides value with no redundant or filler content.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and overlapping sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter combination requirements per query type, return format, error handling, and any guidance distinguishing it from `query_reachability` or `persistent_graph_stats_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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `queryType` values (neighbors, reachability, node) and gives context for reachability's source/target relationship, but it leaves `nodeId`, `targetNodeId`, `edgeKind`, `direction`, and the roles of `projectId`/`workingDirectory` largely undefined. Most parameters are not semantically clarified.

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 identifies the tool as executing structured graph queries against a persistent store and enumerates three specific query types (neighbors, reachability, node). It is specific about the resource (graph store) and verb (query), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like `query_reachability`, which overlaps in purpose.

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 phrase 'Uses stored graph data without re-extraction' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over overlapping siblings such as `query_reachability`, `extract_call_graph`, or `persistent_graph_stats_tool`. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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