get_graph

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds that the tool returns a subgraph in JSON, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain what the 'hops' parameter affects or whether there are any limits or side effects. This is a modest addition, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence of nine words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place. This is the ideal level of conciseness for a simple read-only query tool.

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 has an output schema, so return values do not need explanation. However, the description is incomplete for a graph traversal tool with two parameters: `hops` is entirely missing, and the relationship to sibling tools (e.g., search vs. graph retrieval) is not clarified. An agent using this tool would need to understand that `hops` controls depth to call it correctly, and that information is absent. This is a significant contextual gap.

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 for both parameters. It only mentions `entity_name` in the main text, clarifying that it is the center of the subgraph, but it says nothing about `hops`, which is an integer with a default of 1 and clearly controls traversal depth. With one of two parameters entirely unexplained and the other only minimally, the description fails to provide adequate semantics for the schema.

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 'Return the subgraph around `entity_name` as JSON' clearly states a specific verb (Return), resource (subgraph), and the output format (JSON). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or differentiate itself, but the function is obvious from the phrasing. Without sibling differentiation, it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_memory, export_memory, or add_memory. It neither gives context for the typical use case nor excludes alternatives. The only implicit hint is the phrase 'subgraph around entity_name,' but that is not enough to count as guidance. This is a clear gap.

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