get_knowledge_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety behavior. It adds useful context beyond annotations by naming the ADR Aggregator source, the Team tier requirement, and the inclusion of analytics and insights.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and scope, and contains no filler or tautology. The Team tier note is the only extra detail and it is directly relevant to whether the agent can successfully invoke the tool.

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 read-only, non-destructive tool with optional parameters and rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the data source, the visualization purpose, the analytics feature, and the required tier. It does not describe the exact response format or return fields, but the annotations and optional-parameter schema reduce the risk of misuse.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'analytics and insights' loosely aligns with include_analytics, but it adds no parameter-specific details such as formatting, defaults, or scope behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Get cross-repository knowledge graph from ADR Aggregator') and clarifies that it visualizes ADR relationships with analytics and insights. It reads clearly and communicates the core value, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like get_adr_diagrams or get_architectural_context.

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 intended use is implied through 'Visualize ADR relationships across repositories,' and the Team tier requirement provides a precondition. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use guidance.

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