kg_diagnostic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Opens in browser' and generates an HTML file, which are key behaviors. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies any data or requires specific permissions. Since it is a diagnostic tool, the risk is low, but the description could be more explicit about the read-only nature and the generated file location (though that is covered in the schema).

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by the key behavioral note about opening in the browser. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 explains what the tool does, why it would be used, and what the output behavior is (HTML dashboard opened in browser). It lists the three diagnostic areas. Although no output schema exists, the description provides sufficient expectations. Slightly more detail on what the dashboard contains (e.g., visualizations or logs) would make it fully complete, but it is adequate for a diagnostic tool.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, covering their purpose and defaults (e.g., 'project' filter, 'output_path' custom location, 'open_browser' default true). The tool description does not add additional parameter detail, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 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 clearly states it 'Generate a diagnostic HTML dashboard for debugging knowledge graph context selection, search results, and node visibility.' This is a specific verb+resource with three explicit areas of focus, distinguishing it from sibling tools like kg_search or kg_get_relevant_context which are functional operations rather than debugging aids.

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 a clear use case: 'to help understand why certain nodes are included/excluded from context.' This implies when to use the tool (when debugging context selection), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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