graph_records

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 mentions the mandatory filter requirement and the behavior of the 'expand_relationships' parameter (walks edges). However, it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior beyond rejection, or any other side effects, which leaves gaps in transparency.

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 long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence provides essential information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. The description covers the key constraint (mandatory filter) and optional behavior (expand relationships). It misses explaining the 'max_records' parameter, but overall it is sufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'type_name' (mandatory, filter) and 'expand_relationships' (walks edges), but does not address 'max_records'. Given the low parameter count, this partial coverage is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the verb 'Fetch' with a specific resource 'graph records' and clarifies that it operates on one type, with a reference to 'graph_types' for finding names. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like graph_types and graph_edits.

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 explicitly states that a type filter is mandatory and that the API will reject unfiltered listings, citing a knowledge base reference. It also advises using 'graph_types' to find valid type names. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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