Get Project Graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that—no mention of what 'nodes and relationships' includes, whether data is time-snapshotted via asOf, or how openWorldHint affects results. The bar is lower because of annotations, but no extra context is contributed.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. 'Fetch project graph nodes and relationships for automation' communicates the core purpose immediately and every word earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema means return-value details are covered elsewhere, and annotations handle the safety profile. Given the moderate complexity (7 optional parameters, several graph sibling tools), the description is adequate for basic selection but lacks usage guidance and any behavioral explanation of the graph scope or how asOf/syncVersion affect the result. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 86%, so the input schema already documents six of seven parameters with meaningful defaults and fallback chains. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with such high schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies; the only undocumented parameter (includeDiff) has a default value, so the omission is minor.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('project graph nodes and relationships'), which distinguishes it from the other graph siblings (timeline, diff, insights, sync_runs) that target different aspects. However, it does not explicitly name any of those siblings or contrast itself with them, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'for automation' hints at a programmatic read use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over projects_graph_timeline, projects_graph_diff, or projects_graph_insights. No alternatives, exclusions, or conditions are provided, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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