get_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the token-limit risk for large graphs and explains exactly what summary:true and saveToFile return (compact summary with id/type/title/positions+edges, or a written file plus summary+path). It also notes the side effect of saveToFile (writing to disk). It does not cover error conditions or permissions, but for a getter this is adequate.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds conditional guidance. Every clause carries useful information—no filler. It is slightly long but acceptable because it covers two distinct alternate behaviors and a follow-up workflow.

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?

The tool is a simple getter but with two alternate modes and a future editing step. The description covers both modes, explains when to use them, and mentions the follow-up tools. It does not describe the structure of the returned graph JSON, but that would be better left to an output schema; for a retrieval tool with no output schema, this is sufficient context.

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 describes summary and saveToFile, but the description adds context beyond the schema: it ties summary to large-graph handling and specifies the exact content of the compact summary (id/type/title/positions + edges). It also explains saveToFile's return behavior and its place in the edit workflow. graphId is self-evident from the name and required field.

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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Получить граф по graphId' (get graph by graphId), which clearly identifies the action and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the mode alternatives (summary/saveToFile) and the follow-up tools update_graph/edit_graph_live, making its scope unique.

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 explicitly states when to use the alternative modes: 'Для БОЛЬШИХ графов ... используй summary:true ... или saveToFile' (for large graphs use summary or saveToFile). It also names the follow-up tools (update_graph/edit_graph_live) for editing and re-uploading, providing clear context not just for this tool but for the surrounding workflow.

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