graph_explore

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

Description declares read-only access, depth limit (1-4), and performance trade-off for higher depths. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden; it does well but could add more about time complexity or result size.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. All key information is front-loaded: purpose, behavior, alternatives.

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 no output schema, the description explains return value (connected memories with relation types, strengths, directions). It also covers filtering capabilities and read-only nature. Sufficient for most use cases, though could mention pagination if results are large.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds a performance note for depth, but overall the schema already explains each parameter adequately.

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 states the tool traverses the knowledge graph via depth-first search, returning connected memories with relation details. It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (graph exploration) and when to use alternatives (memory_related for combined approach, graph_connect for adding edges). Also notes it is read-only.

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