get_knowledge_graph

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

Description discloses return structure (center item, connected nodes, typed edges with confidence scores) and depth behavior, adding value beyond readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words; purpose and depth advice are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 output schema present, description adequately covers core functionality and depth options, though it could briefly mention when to use this over other graph tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the description's depth guidance largely repeats the schema's description, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states the tool builds a knowledge graph around a specific item using knowledge_edges, distinguishing it from siblings like get_related or find_path by focusing on graph construction.

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 advises using depth=1 for direct connections and depth=2-3 for wider exploration, but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools for different needs.

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