graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful nuance by mentioning 'confirmed/suggested' and 'incoming and outgoing' edge types, which go beyond the schema. However, it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, how confirmation status is determined, or any side effects or access requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and key distinctions with no wasted words. Every element contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema, so return-value documentation is not required in the description. However, the description lacks guidance on entity_id semantics and when to choose this tool over graph-related siblings, making it minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent navigating a large sibling set.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'for an entity,' which essentially restates the entity_id field title without clarifying accepted values, ID format, or what counts as an entity in this graph context. The description adds no meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Return confirmed/suggested incoming and outgoing graph edges for an entity.' It clearly communicates what the tool returns and includes distinguishing detail about edge direction and confirmation status. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the scope is specific enough that it is unlikely to be confused with most siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as link_entities or read_context. The description implies use when graph edges are needed, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool.

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