axon_pro_cypher

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. It does not say whether the query is executed read-only or whether write clauses (CREATE/DELETE/MERGE) are permitted, nor whether there are timeouts, row limits, or permission requirements — critical for a tool that accepts arbitrary query text.

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 zero filler. It is tight, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 raw-query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum convey the graph's domain model (nodes/relationships), read/write safety, and result shape. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at invocation safety and expectations.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'query' string fully; the description adds nothing beyond 'Cypher query to execute.' Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('raw Cypher query against the knowledge graph'), and the word 'raw' implicitly distinguishes it from the structured sibling axon_pro_query. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to reach for raw Cypher versus the many specialized siblings (axon_pro_query, axon_pro_impact, axon_pro_dead_code, etc.) that presumably cover common graph questions. An agent has no signal about whether this is a last-resort escape hatch or a primary interface.

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