read_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it does not modify the notebook, require specific permissions, or explain pagination/limit behavior. Since the limit parameter hints at paging but is not elaborated, the description leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first establishes the primary purpose with a clear verb and resource, and the second offers a practical usage tip. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing, and the most important information is front-loaded. It scores high for efficiency and structure.

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 read tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and filter usage. The required notebook parameter is in the schema, so that is covered. Missing explicit output format or a read-only guarantee, but given the simplicity and schema coverage, it is largely adequate. A brief mention of return structure or side-effect-free behavior would make it fully complete.

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 67%: limit and filter have descriptions, but notebook does not. The tool description reiterates the filter's purpose ('narrow by block name or signature') but adds no new parameter-specific meaning. It does contextualize what signatures are (typed signatures) but that is not tied to the notebook parameter. Given moderate schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 action (List), the target (blocks in a notebook), and the specific data included (typed signatures, wiring, literal values). This is specific and distinguishes it from generic operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools. It is not a tautology and gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool returns.

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 only usage hint is 'Use filter to narrow by block name or signature,' which addresses the filter parameter but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_blocks or inspect_notebook. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or cross-references to related tools. The context implies a read operation but does not help an agent decide between similar capabilities.

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