quipu_graph

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations, it discloses the default filters (prov:Activity episodes, rdf/rdfs/prov scaffolding predicates), the ranking and capping behavior of nodes, and — critically — that the response self-reports what was dropped. That truncation disclosure is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return payload, followed by default exclusions and then capping/truncation reporting. The first sentence is dense with parenthetical field lists but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so concretely (node fields, edge tuple format, census ordering). Minor gaps remain: how limit and edge_budget interact when both bite, and edge ordering, are left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so type, limit, and include_episodes are already documented in detail, including the default 250 and hard max 2000. The description reinforces the degree-ranked capping and the episode exclusion but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema, and edge_budget is not discussed at all.

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?

"Project the knowledge graph into a render-ready node-link payload" gives a specific verb and resource, and the enumeration of the returned shape (nodes, indexed edges, type census) makes it unmistakably a visualization/graph-dump tool rather than a query tool. It stops short of naming a sibling such as quipu_query or quipu_export to clarify the boundary.

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 implies usage (you want a renderable node-link payload in one call, rather than paginating a query) and explains the default scope choice so the domain graph is not buried in provenance. It never explicitly states when to prefer this over quipu_query, quipu_graph_list, or quipu_export.

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