Get Graph Data

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context by stating that the response contains both nodes and edges and covers the entire graph, which is not expressed in the annotations. It does not mention error handling or potential payload size, but the added output shape information justifies a score above baseline.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and object. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool, the description adequately states what is returned (nodes and edges) and identifies the required input. However, it omits edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid graph ID) and does not mention whether the full graph could be large or require pagination. These gaps keep it from a perfect score, but it is otherwise complete.

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 fully documents the single required parameter (graph_id) with a clear example format. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond restating that the graph ID is needed, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), identifies the resource ('full knowledge graph data'), and specifies the exact scope ('nodes and edges') tied to a graph ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_entities or search_graph, which have narrower or different purposes.

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 when to use the tool—when the full graph structure is needed—but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling names such as get_entities_by_type and graph_statistics hint at other options, but the description itself provides no direct guidance.

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