graph-get_linked

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it 'gets' items, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, required permissions, or performance considerations. The description lacks detail on behavior beyond the basic retrieval.

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?

Single sentence, 15 words, straightforward. No superfluous information. Key action and optional filter are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple query tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It does not detail return format or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely adequate for an AI agent to understand its function.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by providing an example for link_type ('e.g., 'context''), which reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema descriptions themselves.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Gets', the resource 'all items linked from a vertex', and mentions optional filtering by link_type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like graph-link and graph-unlink which perform different actions.

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?

Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies its use for retrieving linked items but provides no exclusions or guidance on choosing between this and other retrieval tools (e.g., items-get, items-list).

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