graph_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does usefully reveal behavior: neighbors is a BFS traversal, communities uses Louvain groups, and depth is bounded to 1-3. On the other hand, it does not explicitly state that querying has no side effects, nor does it mention potential costs, permissions, or error behavior for missing required parameters.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear argument list where each line adds essential semantic information. There is no redundant restating of types or schema defaults.

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 output schema exists and the description explains all modes and parameters, the tool is largely self-contained for invocation. It falls slightly short of a 5 by not explicitly addressing whether the modes are mutually exclusive or what happens when both chunk_id and project are supplied.

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, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the meaning and role of every parameter, including conditional requiredness (chunk_id for neighbors, project for communities) and the valid depth range.

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 starts with the specific verb 'Query' and resource 'the knowledge graph', and the parameter list adds two distinct modes (neighbors/communities) that clarify what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'search', so it stops short of a 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 gives clear conditional usage context: chunk_id is required for neighbors mode, project is required for communities mode, and depth applies to neighbors mode. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as 'search' or 'project_info', nor does it state when not to use it.

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