get_thought_graph

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

No annotations exist. The description fails to disclose side effects, permissions, or error behavior. It does not clarify whether it reads existing data or triggers mutations, which is risky for a retrieval tool.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the core action, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the scope.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description offers no insight into return format (e.g., graph structure, attached entities). Given three parameters, the description is too sparse to ensure correct invocation.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate but does not enhance understanding of how 'includeSiblings' modifies results.

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 it retrieves a thought with its connections and attachments, making it distinct from get_thought which likely returns just the thought. The verb 'get' is generic but the resource scope is specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like get_thought or list_attachments. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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