akb_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it states the traversal strategy (BFS), the two graph scopes (centered subgraph vs full vault graph), and the returned element types (nodes and edges). It stops short of describing output shape or pagination, but the essentials are present.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core resource and action, and free of filler. Every clause adds useful information about graph scope or traversal behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the return shape at a high level (nodes for documents/tables/files and edges for relations), plus both invocation modes. It is complete enough for an optional-parameter retrieval tool, though it omits behavior when neither `uri` nor `vault` is provided.

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 parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the `uri`/`vault` mode distinction but does not add material meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource (same-vault knowledge graph) and the action (get), enumerating node types and edge meaning. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling graph-adjacent tools like akb_relations or akb_browse, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 explicit within-tool usage guidance: pass `uri` for a BFS-centered subgraph, or pass `vault` without `uri` for the full vault graph. It also leverages schema text to disambiguate `hops` from `akb_browse.depth`, but it does not discuss when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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