Graph Recall

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is supported by the description's 'already knows' and 'free' language, implying no target interaction or state change. It does not fully elaborate on output behavior, but the annotation covers the primary safety concern.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, immediately conveying the tool's purpose and the recommended usage context. Every sentence adds value, with no filler 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 provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role and when to invoke it, especially with the output schema present. However, the lack of parameter explanations slightly reduces the overall completeness.

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 input schema has zero descriptions for the three parameters. The description indirectly defines 'subject' as a host, URL, or asset, but 'depth' and 'limit' are unexplained, leaving their meaning and effect ambiguous.

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 identifies the tool as a recall/query operation for existing engagement knowledge about a host, URL, or asset, including its connections. It is concise and distinguishes this from active recon by explicitly advising to ask before re-running a scan.

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 explicit guidance: use it before re-running recon because the answer is free, whereas a re-scan costs target requests. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the when/why is clear.

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