kin_graph_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — it doesn't say whether counts are per-session or global, how fresh they are, or what 'settled reading' means operationally. The cryptic second sentence about last_settled_selected_graph reads more like a fragment of a return-field note than usable guidance.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence is terse to the point of being opaque, but it is not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it only gestures at this ('Graph and embedding counts' plus one oddly named field). An agent knows it gets counts but not the shape, units, or the meaning of 'last settled reading' — adequate but with a real gap for a status/metrics 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric baseline is 4. The description cannot and need not explain parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids implying any inputs.

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 phrase 'Graph and embedding counts' states the resource being reported but not a clear verb — it implies a read of status metrics without saying 'returns', 'reports', or what the status actually means. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like graph_neighborhood or impact_analysis, which also touch graph data, though the name and annotation title ('Graph status') hint at a lightweight read-only status check.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus the many kin_* siblings (session ops, mutation, provenance queries). No prerequisites, no mention of whether a session must be active first, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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