read_subgraph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It is a read operation (implied by name), but the description does not disclose behavioral details such as response structure, performance implications, or whether it modifies state. Minimal information beyond purpose.

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, making it concise. However, for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, it is overly brief and could include more contextual information without being verbose.

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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal. The presence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for missing usage guidelines and behavioral details. The description is not complete enough for complex decision-making.

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 does not add any meaning beyond what the input schema provides; it simply restates the tool's overall purpose.

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 'Get the neighborhood around a concept for context' clearly states the tool retrieves a subgraph centered on a concept. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_edge (mutations), get_learning_path, get_statistics, and query_graph.

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, no exclusions, and no context for appropriate usage. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when to invoke it.

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