get_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating it returns a bounded set. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not elaborate on side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description is neutral and minimally informative regarding behavior.

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 with no extra words. It front-loads the action and key information. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output structure (e.g., format of nodes/edges), how filters interact (AND/OR), or the meaning of 'OKF graph.' It also fails to clarify the 'bounded' semantics (e.g., that maxNodes/maxEdges cap results). The description leaves agents without crucial context 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description summarizes filters as 'optional concept filters,' which adds some cohesion but no new detail. It does not explain the interplay between parameters (e.g., how filters combine). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a bounded set of graph nodes and edges with optional filters. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('OKF graph nodes and edges'). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_subgraph' or 'get_neighbors', which may cause confusion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_subgraph, find_paths). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. This is a significant gap given many sibling tools with overlapping functionality.

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