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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at mutation-related ops such as write, protect, forget, and evolution, but does not disclose permissions, destructive effects, reversibility, protected-node constraints, or return 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 definition is two sentences, front-loaded with the sole-entry-point role and operation families, followed by the help discovery instruction. It is dense but appropriately sized with no wasted text.

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 212-parameter multi-op gateway with no output schema and no annotations, the description is very sparse. It points to op=help but does not provide return information, per-op behavior, or enough standalone detail to invoke most operations correctly without an extra help call.

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 only 29% across 212 parameters, so the schema cannot fully document itself. The description partially compensates by naming op and query and showing the help lookup pattern, but it does not explain most parameter meanings directly.

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 identifies the resource clearly as the sole entry point to the Lingzhu cognitive graph and enumerates 38 operation families including write/read/review/protect/evolution. It does not mention the sibling tool stg, so sibling differentiation is absent, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

It gives explicit discovery guidance: call cg(op="help", query="<op name | parameter name | tool name>") for complete op and parameter semantics. This is clear context for how to proceed, though it does not state when-not to use the tool or explain alternatives beyond being the sole entry point.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing: no read-vs-write characterization, no side effects, no auth or rate-limit notes, and no indication whether state_chain or consistency mutate graph state. The op names hint at intent but behavior remains opaque.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the op enumeration front-loaded. The structure is efficient, though the second sentence substitutes a lookup pointer for content rather than adding substance.

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 14-parameter, multi-op tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin to call correctly without a preliminary help lookup. The cg help pointer prevents total failure but leaves the definition dependent on an external call.

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?

With 14 parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, yet it offers no parameter meaning at all — it only says to query cg(op="help") for param semantics. Parameters like a, b, bbox, slot, time_axis, and include_retired are entirely undocumented in both places.

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?

It names the resource (semantic spatiotemporal graph) and enumerates the five allowed ops, so an agent knows the tool's domain. But it never says what any op actually does, and the op list merely restates the enum already present in the schema, leaving purpose vague beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick stg over the sibling cg, nor when to use relation vs timeline vs consistency. The only routing hint is a self-referential pointer to cg(op="help"), which pushes the decision to a second call rather than informing selection.

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