read_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: pagination with offset/limit, the summary mode, and what the summary contains (names + types + observation counts). It doesn't mention all nuances like relation handling in default mode, but the added context is valuable.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the core action, default pagination, and summary option. No fluff or repetition. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has an output schema and full schema coverage for parameters, the description adequately covers the main use case (read whole graph) and the two modes. It could mention performance implications of reading the entire graph or explicitly clarify that relations are also returned in the default paginated result, but it is mostly complete for a read tool with pagination and summary options.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by specifying what summary=True provides ('names + types + observation counts') and clarifying default pagination behavior. This supplements the schema, justifying a 4 rather than a 3, though it doesn't heavily elaborate on other parameters.

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's function: 'Read the entire knowledge graph — all entities and relations.' It uses a specific verb (read) and resource (knowledge graph), and distinguishes itself from siblings like search_nodes and search_thoughts by emphasizing the whole graph rather than focused search. The mention of summary mode adds further clarity about the tool's scope.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to read the entire knowledge graph, as opposed to searching. It provides clear context about default behavior (full entities with pagination) and the alternative summary mode. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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