personal_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the output is a graph structure containing nodes and edges with styling, but it does not disclose side effects (if any), whether data is read-only, how depth/focus filtering affects the subgraph, or what 'only_len' means. This is too sparse for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short and wastes no words, which is structurally good. However, it is under-specified to the point of being cryptic, and the internal reference '§3.10, D17' adds no value to an AI evaluator. It is concise but not appropriately informative.

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 tool has three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and only a minimal description of the return shape. Although an output schema exists, the description does little to clarify how parameters influence the result or when this tool should be preferred. The information density is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of depth, focus_id, or only_len. The agent is left with bare parameter names and defaults, with no help on how they shape the returned subgraph. The description does not compensate at all for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies a specific resource and outcome: a subgraph of nodes and edges with color/icon, ready for visualization. This is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like personal_neighbors or personal_get_node, which imply narrower or single-node operations, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'build'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as personal_neighbors or personal_search. The internal reference '§3.10, D17' provides no actionable information to an AI agent, and no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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