quipu_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that only SELECT (not mutation) queries are accepted, plus time-travel support, but says nothing about result limits, timeouts, or pagination behavior on large graphs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and the two most distinctive capabilities in a parenthetical. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 nine parameters and no output schema, the description is thin on return shape (bindings format, default CURIE compaction vs. the verbose flag) and on operational limits. For a raw query-escape-hatch tool, an agent needs a bit more about result handling than is provided.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented; the description only groups valid_at/tx as the time-travel pair, which the schema already conveys individually. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (SPARQL SELECT query against the knowledge graph), which clearly separates it from siblings like quipu_search, quipu_ask, and quipu_rule_query. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred 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 mention of SELECT and the time-travel capability implies when this tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over quipu_ask (natural-language) or the structured search tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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