read_terrain_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'read' and 'return', but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or destructive behavior. Lacks details on error conditions or performance. Adequate but not enriched.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, usage guideline, and linkage to other tools. No redundant information. Efficiently structured for quick reading.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately describes the return value (complete summary of nodes, properties, ports, connections). It also provides context on tool sequencing. Missing details on output format (e.g., JSON structure), but overall sufficient for a simple tool.

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% for the single filename parameter. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema's own description. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reads a .terrain file and returns a complete summary of nodes, properties, ports, and connections. It uses specific verb 'read' and resource 'terrain file', and distinguishes from siblings like get_node_details by implying comprehensive 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?

Explicitly advises to 'call this first when working with an existing terrain to understand the current graph structure', providing clear usage context. Mentions that node IDs are used in other tools (connect_nodes, etc.), aiding in tool sequencing. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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