get_contributor_network_global_graph

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the node cap (2000), the error code for exceeding it, and suggests remedial filters. It also implies read-only by stating the scope. This provides good upfront behavioral information.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences plus a scope line. Every word is necessary, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description covers the main concerns: purpose, scope, size limit, and error handling. It lacks explicit return format details, but 'lineage graph' is a common concept. Overall sufficient for a read-only graph 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions competition_id and kind only as filters when hitting the cap, but does not explain their general purpose (e.g., kind filters node types, competition_id scopes to a competition). This provides partial but not full semantic context.

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 retrieves the 'lineage graph across all visible items,' which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_contributor_network_item_graph that probably target individual items. The use of 'global' in the name is reinforced.

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?

Explicitly mentions the required auth scope ('contributor-network.read') and provides actionable guidance: if the graph is too large (413 error), add filters (competition_id or kind). It does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use, but the error handling advice is valuable.

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