get_knowledge_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool 'gets' a graph and can be filtered. It does not describe the output shape (e.g., nodes/edges), what the default behavior is aside from the connectionType default in the schema, or how connection types 'core' and 'soft' behave.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then states the optional filters. Every word contributes value, with 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the core usage adequately. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the lack of any description of the returned graph structure or the semantics of 'core' vs 'soft' connections leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to interpret results or choose filters.

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 both parameters and the enum values. The description adds little beyond restating that filtering is optional, and it does not clarify the meaning of 'core' or 'soft' connection types, but the baseline is acceptable because the schema captures the parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('knowledge graph') and clarifies that it shows relationships between essays, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_essays or get_essay. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource and relationship framing make the purpose 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when a knowledge graph of essay relationships is needed, with optional filtering by essay or connection type. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to siblings such as search_essays or get_framework_overview.

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