get_knowledge_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Team tier requirement but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or output size. Behavioral traits like mutability or performance impact are absent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information (source, capability, requirement). No redundant or filler content.

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, the description should explain what the returned knowledge graph looks like or its format. It mentions 'analytics and insights' but does not describe the output structure, which is a significant gap for a tool generating complex relational data.

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 each parameter (scope, projectPath, include_analytics) already has a clear schema description. The tool description adds marginal value by linking 'analytics and insights' to include_analytics, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 a cross-repository knowledge graph from ADR Aggregator, with analytics and insights. The verb 'Get' and resource 'knowledge graph' are specific, and the focus on visualizing ADR relationships distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_adr_timeline or compare_adr_progress.

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 notes 'Requires Team tier,' which is a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for visualizing ADR relationships but lacks explicit when-to or when-not-to guidance.

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