query_triples

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond 'Returns all matching triples.' There is no mention of limits, pagination, or error handling, but the description does not contradict annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose and clearly labeled sections for parameters and returns. The use of 'Args:' and 'Returns:' adds structure without significant redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers parameter semantics and essential usage. It lacks some behavioral details (e.g., what happens if no filters are provided) but is sufficient for a simple query tool.

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%, but the description provides clear, independent explanations for each parameter (subject, predicate, object_name), adding meaning beyond the schema's names and types.

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') and resource ('knowledge graph triples') with optional filters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_triple and delete_triple, though it could more explicitly differentiate from similar query tools like graph_edges.

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 says 'At least one filter should be provided,' which is a usage guideline, but it does not mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives like get_links or graph_edges.

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