query_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior and intended use cases, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, result format, or query constraints. This gives some behavioral context but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose and usage well. However, with sibling search tools like hippocampus_search_events, an explicit alternative statement would improve completeness. Overall, it is nearly complete but misses direct sibling differentiation.

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 100% coverage of the two parameters (cypher and params) with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's read-only note, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 executes read-only Cypher queries for complex data retrieval, and specifies use cases (custom queries, analytics, exploring graph structure). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing read-only and custom query capability.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use ('Use for custom queries, analytics, and exploring the graph structure'), and explicitly says read-only. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly exclude predefined search tools, so guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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