query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, the exact set of allowed operations, and a key safety feature: 'Results are automatically sanitized to hide secret values.' This goes beyond the schema and gives critical behavioral context, though it does not address error handling, pagination, or rate limits.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second lists constraints. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action. No waste or redundancy.

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 is quite complete given the rich schema (full parameter coverage), an output schema (handles return values), and its own behavioral notes. It covers the essential safety and constraint aspects, but could have explicitly mentioned that this is a graph exploration tool versus node/relationship access, though that is implied by 'knowledge graph' and sibling context.

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 schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little extra meaning to the 'cypher' parameter by enumerating allowed operations, but it does not explain other parameters (limit, parameters) beyond what the schema already says.

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 function: 'Execute read-only Cypher queries to explore the knowledge graph.' It uses a specific verb (execute), a resource (Cypher queries), and a domain (knowledge graph), while the read-only qualifier distinguishes it from sibling 'execute' or 'nodes' tools.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (to explore the knowledge graph through Cypher) and explicitly restricts allowed operations ('Only MATCH, RETURN, WITH, WHERE, ORDER BY operations are allowed'), which helps the agent avoid invalid or write queries. However, it does not mention any alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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