discover_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the two modes but does not discuss output format, potential side effects, or resource implications of scanning the whole graph. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes useful information. It avoids fluff and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 covers the main input behavior and scope, which is sufficient for a simple tool. However, it lacks any detail about the output format or limitations (e.g., what happens if no connections are found). Given no output schema exists, this is a minor gap.

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 provides a full description of the 'topic' parameter (coverage 100%), so the baseline is 3. The tool description repeats similar information and adds slight nuance ('cross-domain bridges') but does not significantly enhance understanding of the parameter beyond the schema.

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: discovering hidden connections between knowledge entities across domains. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., detect_blindspots, trace_concept_evolution) by focusing on cross-domain bridges. The two operational modes (with and without a topic) are also specified.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool: when a topic is provided vs. when scanning the entire graph. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the conditional behavior is explicit enough to guide an agent.

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