tigergraph__get_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose side effects or access requirements. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any authentication, profile requirements beyond the parameter description, or potential performance implications. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 clear sections (description, use cases, example, tips, related tools). It is concise and every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary fluff.

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, combined with a detailed schema, covers the main usage contexts and provides a concrete example. It does not mention return format or edge cases (e.g., empty results), but for a simple read operation without an output schema, this is largely sufficient. The lack of annotations adds a small burden that is only partially met.

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 input schema covers all six parameters with clear descriptions, giving a solid baseline. The Quick Start example adds concrete usage context, and the profile parameter description references list_connections, which is helpful. However, the main description text does not significantly enhance the schema-provided semantics, so a score slightly above baseline is warranted.

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 the tool retrieves multiple edges and optionally filters by type, which distinguishes it from singular get_edge or neighbor-focused tools. However, it omits mention of filtering by source vertex, which is a key capability reflected in the schema, so it is not fully complete.

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 lists appropriate scenarios and the tip 'Use get_neighbors for simpler use cases' provides differentiation from a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_edge or get_node_edges, leaving some ambiguity about when each should be chosen.

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