get_dag_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the return value, but does not mention that this is a read-only operation (though implied), nor does it explain the nature of 'credible intervals' or any side effects/limitations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and bounds without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return format and semantics. It does not define 'credible intervals' or what nodes/edges are included, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent without prior context.

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 description maps 'depth+width-bounded' to max_depth and max_children, giving them meaning. However, node_id is not explicitly explained, and with 0% schema coverage, it does not fully compensate for all parameter details such as defaults or how the bounds are applied.

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 identifies the action (Return), the resource (subgraph), and the specific parameters (depth+width-bounded) that distinguish it from sibling tools like render_dag_map or list_nodes. The mention of credible intervals adds further specificity.

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 implies usage for retrieving a local, bounded view of a DAG around a node, which is distinct from siblings like get_conflicts or generate_learning_path. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.

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