get_knowledge_graph

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, authentication requirements beyond tier, or rate limits. Only mentions the 'Requires Team tier' prerequisite.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Each sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers the essential purpose, data source, and tier requirement. It could mention the return format (e.g., graph data or visualization) but 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it references analytics and insights which align with include_analytics but does not enhance understanding.

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 retrieves a cross-repository knowledge graph from ADR Aggregator with analytics and insights, and visualizes ADR relationships. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_adr_timeline or get_adr_context.

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 mentions 'Requires Team tier' as a prerequisite but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other analysis tools. No explicit when-not or alternative suggestions.

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