hebbrix_graph_query

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavior context beyond annotations by explaining bi-temporal timestamp semantics and depth range (1-5), which are not inferable from the schema alone.

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?

Two concise paragraphs: the first introduces the core function and key parameters; the second provides a clear use-case differentiation. No word is wasted, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

For a graph traversal tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential usage: what it does, how to use the primary parameters, and when to choose an alternative. Minor omissions like relation_type and collection_id filtering options prevent a perfect score, but these are intuitive from their names.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must illuminate parameters. It effectively explains 'timestamp' (ISO format, bi-temporal) and 'depth' (graph hops, 1-5), but omits 'relation_type' and 'collection_id' which are left entirely to the schema. This partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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?

Clearly states the tool traverses a knowledge graph from a named entity to find relationships and facts, with a specific verb-resource pairing. It explicitly distinguishes itself from hebbrix_ask by contrasting entity-based traversal vs free-text querying.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance by directing free-text questions to hebbrix_ask while clarifying this tool is for known entities. This direct comparison with a specific sibling alternative makes the usage context unambiguous.

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