get_edges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior: full edge records with metadata and count, highest-weight-first ordering when limit is set, and all edges when limit is omitted. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then direction, return behavior, and limit semantics. No wasted text.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values in full, but it still covers return shape and count. It also compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by explaining every parameter.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains thought_id as the thought identifier, direction values OUT/IN/BOTH with default BOTH, and limit as a cap returning highest-weight edges first.

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 and resource: fetch edges connected to a thought by identifier. It also names link_thoughts and delete_edge as related tools, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, list_edges.

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?

Explains direction choices and defaults, and describes limit behavior. It frames itself as the read companion to link_thoughts and delete_edge, but does not explicitly say when to use it instead of list_edges.

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