get_graph_at_time

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only rephrases the tool name without adding operational details such as return format, potential side effects, timestamp validation, or performance implications. For a read operation, it is safe to assume non-destructiveness, but the description does not explicitly confirm or elaborate on behavior.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's purpose without waste.

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 is simple with one parameter, and the description covers its core function. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., full graph snapshot, node/relation lists). This leaves minor ambiguity but is still adequate for basic invocation.

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?

The input schema fully documents the timestamp parameter (100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate. It adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are necessary given the schema's clarity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('knowledge graph memory') with a clear temporal qualifier ('as it existed at a specific point in time'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_graph (current state) and get_decayed_graph (decay-based retrieval).

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 use for historical queries but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as read_graph or get_entity_history. The 'as it existed at a specific point in time' hints at the use case but leaves it to the agent to infer when to use this tool over siblings.

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