Get Graph Entities

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating that the tool filters by entity types and returns only matching nodes, which goes beyond the structured annotations. It does not cover pagination or return format, but the added filtering behavior merits a 4.

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 short sentences that directly convey the core function and filtering behavior. It contains zero filler, unnecessary detail, or overly technical jargon. Every clause earns its place.

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 simplicity, read-only annotations, and complete schema, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks any differentiation from the very similar mirofish_get_entities_by_type and does not clarify the effect of the `enrich` parameter on the returned data. With no output schema, the description should do more to set expectations about the response shape or usage context.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including explicit descriptions for `graph_id`, `enrich`, and `entity_types`. The description does not add new parameter details beyond mentioning entity type filtering, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Get all filtered entities') and a clear resource ('knowledge graph'), and it distinguishes the tool's behavior by noting it only returns nodes matching predefined entity types. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling tool mirofish_get_entities_by_type, leaving ambiguity about which one to choose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or suggest a preferred scenario. With siblings like mirofish_get_entities_by_type and mirofish_get_graph_data, such guidance is critical.

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