graph_graph_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it lists graphs with counts but does not explicitly declare that it is read-only or non-destructive. Given the operation type, it is likely safe, but more explicit behavioral disclosure would improve transparency.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action and result. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or wasted space.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential purpose and output. Minor missing details like ordering or format are likely covered by the output schema.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (schema coverage 100%). With 0 parameters, the description does not need to add parameter info, and the baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable here.

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 'List all graphs with their node/edge counts.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (graphs), and additional detail (node/edge counts), clearly distinguishing it from sibling graph tools that operate on individual nodes or edges.

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 implies usage for listing all graphs, but it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like graph_graph_status or graph_graph_nodes. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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