graph_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, whether operations can be expensive, or what side effects might occur. It only describes operation logic and parameters, leaving the agent to guess about safety and operational traits.

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 structured, front-loaded list where each operation and parameter has its own line. It is long but packs in necessary detail without redundancy. The minor typo 'Realtionship' is the only blemish, but the structure is effective.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers operation variants and parameter requirements. It is missing explicit return-value descriptions (e.g., what shortest_path returns), which an agent would need for downstream reasoning, but the input-side coverage is strong enough to select and invoke correctly.

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 is the sole documentation for parameters. It maps each parameter to specific info_types (e.g., 'start_node: Object ID of source node (for shortest_path)') and adds naming conventions and formats ('Comma-separated relationship filter', 'fuzzy or exact'), going well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 it 'Perform[s] graph analysis operations in BloodHound' and lists seven specific operation types (kinds, search, shortest_path, edge_composition, relay_targets, pathfinding, acl_inheritance). This is a specific, actionable verb-resource pairing that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like user_info or cypher_query.

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 for selecting the appropriate info_type by pairing each operation with a one-line purpose and its required/optional parameters (e.g., 'search - search for nodes by name (needs: query; optional: search_type)'). It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use the tool or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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