graphify_subgraph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it uses BFS, caps tokens, and supports fuzzy matching, but does not disclose behavior on budget exceedance, missing nodes, or the output format beyond what the output schema provides.

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 concise with two sentences and a bulleted args list. It is front-loaded and well-structured, though the args section could be integrated more seamlessly.

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 description covers core functionality and parameters but misses details on the 'as_json' parameter and error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but extra context would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains node, hops, and budget_tokens, but omits the 'as_json' parameter entirely. This incomplete coverage lowers the score.

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 extracts a BFS subgraph around a node with a token budget. This specific verb+resource is distinct from sibling tools, and the phrase 'token-cheap way to hand the model just the relevant slice' further differentiates it.

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 obtaining a relevant subgraph slice versus the whole graph, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the 15 siblings.

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