tigergraph__get_edge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions 'Returns edge attributes if any' but does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only operation) or error handling when the edge is not found. The 'Requires full edge specification' tip is useful but insufficient to fully disclose behavior.

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 well-structured with headings and bullet points, and it is not excessively verbose. However, some redundancy exists between the opening sentence and the 'Use When' bullet 'Retrieving a specific relationship,' making it slightly less concise than it could be.

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?

The description provides purpose, use cases, an example, and related tools, covering most contextual needs. It lacks explicit information about the return format (e.g., whether the edge is returned as an object or null) and error behavior, but for a simple get operation this is sufficient. No output schema exists, so the description could be more explicit about response structure.

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 descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Type of the edge'), and the description adds value through the Quick Start example and the tip about requiring full edge specification, which clarifies that all five core parameters are mandatory. This goes slightly beyond the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Get a single edge (relationship) from a TigerGraph graph by specifying source, target, and edge type,' clearly identifying the verb (get), resource (edge), and scope. It also distinguishes itself from related tools like get_edges (plural) and get_neighbors via the 'single edge' emphasis and the related tools list.

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 'Use When' section provides concrete scenarios (retrieving a specific relationship, checking edge attributes, verifying edge creation) and the 'Tips' section explicitly contrasts with get_neighbors for simpler queries, offering clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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