aiworkhub_manager_context_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 contributes 'bounded' and 'deterministic', which tells the agent results are capped and stably ordered — real added context. However, it says nothing about relation direction/typing, what happens for an unknown node_id, or whether an empty result is normal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably over-compressed for a tool with two undocumented parameters, but there is no wasted text to cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described. But for a graph traversal tool the description omits essential operational context — direction of relations, traversal depth (one hop vs transitive), and behavior on a missing node — leaving the agent unable to predict results.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: 'one graph node' hints at node_id's role and 'bounded' hints at limit, but neither the default of 20, the result ordering, nor the meaning of the limit bound is explained. Only bare hints are given where full compensation is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (relations for one graph node), and the 'for one graph node' scope implicitly distinguishes it from the range/search siblings. The 'MANAGER READ' prefix signals a read-tier operation. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over aiworkhub_manager_context_graph_search, context_graph_range, or kb_related, nor on preconditions such as whether the node must already exist. An agent must infer the selection rule from the tool name alone.

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