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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'privacy-filtered project metadata,' which hints at filtering but is too vague to be useful. No contradiction, but little additional behavioral context is provided.

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 short sentence, so it is concise, but the wording is cryptic and structurally confusing. It lacks clarity and does not front-load the most important information (what the tool returns).

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is grossly insufficient. An agent cannot determine how to call the tool correctly or what to expect in the response.

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% and the description mentions none of the four parameters (cursor, pageSize, projectId, sessionId). Since the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, an agent has no clue about parameter purpose, formats, or relationships.

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 states a verb ('Read') and a resource ('hosted get graph scope'), but the resource is ambiguous and unclear. The tool name suggests 'get roots' (retrieving root nodes of a graph), yet the description uses a garbled phrase that does not clarify what is returned. It fails to differentiate from similar siblings like get_graph_scope, graph_read, or get_context_graph.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description offers no decision support for an agent choosing between this and the many read-oriented sibling tools.

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