catalog_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: unregistered references are not dropped but preserved through diagnostics, which is useful and goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the primary behavior stated first. The second clause adds useful diagnostic behavior without padding, though it is terse enough that some meaning is left implicit.

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 is simple, read-only, and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it leaves important context unclear: what 'scope' means, what the diagnostics are, and how this compares to other catalog tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

There is one parameter, scope, with a default and zero schema documentation. The description provides no information about valid scope values or how scope affects the returned graph, so it does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'returns declaration and reference relationships', which clearly indicates the core function of the graph tool. It also adds a distinguishing behavior about unregistered references being preserved through diagnostics, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling catalog tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like catalog_list, catalog_effective, or catalog_discover. The diagnostic-preservation note hints at a particular behavior, but the description never states use cases, exclusions, or alternatives.

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