get_contributor_network_item_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope ('contributor-network.read'), the sign convention for depth, and that it returns ancestors and descendants. It does not mention authentication needs or rate limits, but as a read operation with a single parameter, the disclosure is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences plus a scope line, conveying all essential information without waste. Every sentence adds value: the core action, the scope, and the depth sign convention. Perfectly concise.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the response concept (depth sign) but lacks detail on the response structure (e.g., fields returned). However, the name suggests a graph structure, so this gap is minor.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name 'item_id' with no description. The description adds meaning by explaining it is the 'rooted at one item' (the anchor). This compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage, though it could specify the format (e.g., string ID) more explicitly.

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 specific purpose: 'Get the lineage subgraph rooted at one item (ancestors + descendants).' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contributor_network_item (single item) and get_contributor_network_global_graph (global graph), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for rooted subgraphs but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_contributor_network_global_graph. It provides context about depth interpretation but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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