graph_related

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope ('jailed to this project') and the mechanism (FTS/edge index), which gives useful context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as output format or performance implications.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and scope. There is no redundant wording, and every phrase earns its place.

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 parameters and an existing schema, the description is sufficient. It conveys the purpose and scope, and the absence of an output schema is not critical since the expected return (related notes) is reasonably inferable. Minor omission: it does not specify whether the output is a list of paths or other metadata, but this is not essential for basic usage.

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%, meaning both parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates the tool returns related notes using the FTS/edge index, scoped to the current project. It is specific enough to differentiate from the sibling graph_cross_project, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'find' or 'list'.

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 phrase 'jailed to this project' implies a scope limitation and hints that a cross-project variant exists, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when to choose this tool over graph_cross_project. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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