List Mnemosyne Graphs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns metadata (IDs, titles, timestamps) and is scoped to the authenticated user's graphs, which is useful context. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, error handling, or whether the list is sorted/filtered beyond ownership.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and scope, the second specifies the return data. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently structured without redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, simple list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers ownership scope and metadata types, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like ordering or limitations, though the output schema mitigates this gap.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. This aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, though it doesn't explicitly state the lack of parameters.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('all knowledge graphs owned by the authenticated user'), specifying both scope and ownership. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_graph' (creation) and 'delete_graph' (deletion) by focusing on retrieval of existing graphs.

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 implies usage for retrieving graph metadata, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'query_blocks' or 'sparql_query' for more specific queries. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.

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