query_graph_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool retrieves a subgraph without modifying the graph, but does not explain how 'most relevant' is determined, the effect of 'token_budget', or any authentication needs. It is adequate but not detailed.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not separate purpose from parameter details or usage notes, making it less scannable.

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 the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to clarify the required 'graph_path', the query format, what constitutes 'relevant', or the output structure. A more complete description is needed 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 adds no parameter information. The parameters 'graph_path', 'query', and 'token_budget' are not described. The description only vaguely references the token budget without clarifying its format or usage.

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 action (Query), the resource (knowledge graph), and the specific outcome (most relevant subgraph within a token budget). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_graph_stats_tool' or 'diff_graph_tool', though no explicit differentiation is made.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'optimize_context_tool' or 'compress_context_tool'. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when to avoid using it.

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