query_graph

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a query (read-oriented) and describes traversal and temporal filtering behaviors. However, it does not mention side effects, permission needs, output shape, or any constraints, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and includes the core action plus key modifiers, though the term 'bi-temporal filtering' is dense and might obscure meaning for some agents.

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 four parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and sibling alternatives, the description is too sparse for correct invocation. It omits parameter meanings and usage context; the presence of an output schema only covers return values, not how to form a valid request.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not: 'node', 'depth', 'project', and 'include_superseded' are left undefined, and the description's bi-temporal filtering reference only hints at one parameter without mapping.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('knowledge graph relations') and names distinctive capabilities: 'recursive multi-hop path traversal' and 'bi-temporal filtering'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like search_memory or visualize_graph.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name any alternative tool or conditions for choosing this one over a sibling. The implied use case (graph traversal with temporal filtering) is not enough to route an agent reliably.

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