get_document_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation by describing the return structure but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, authorization requirements, or performance implications. The disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and return details, then provides parameter help. Every sentence adds value, and the structure logically flows from what the tool does to how to use it.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns and how to specify the document. It could add error handling (e.g., what happens if the document doesn't exist) or mention that the output is a tree, but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 single parameter doc_name is described with context: 'Document name. Empty string uses the active document.' Since the input schema has no description (0% coverage), this adds meaningful information beyond the schema, clarifying the default behavior.

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 it gets a structured representation of a document's feature tree and lists the returned fields (TypeId, label, properties, dependency links, validity/touch state). It also positions itself as the primary tool for understanding a FreeCAD model, distinguishing it from sibling tools like inspect_object or get_sketch_diagnostics.

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 calls it the 'primary tool for understanding what a FreeCAD model contains' but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. While the usage context is implied, there is no direct guidance on when to choose this over other tools like analyze_shape or inspect_object.

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