websex_graphql_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two real traits: results are persisted, and findings are not asserted without response evidence. It omits auth/permission needs, request volume, and whether it mutates the target, so the disclosure is partial.

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 efficient, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads. The second sentence bundles persistence and the evidence caveat, which slightly dilutes focus but is still compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the persistence note is useful. However, for a three-parameter audit tool it omits key context such as introspection preconditions, authentication expectations, and the distinction from graphql_request.

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% across three parameters (url, headers, engagement_id), and the description mentions none of them. It adds no meaning about what headers accepts, what an engagement_id is, or how url is used, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Assess a GraphQL endpoint') plus the concrete output ('enumerate query/mutation fields'). It is distinguishable from the sibling websex_graphql_request, which performs raw requests rather than a full audit, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. introspection must be enabled), and no routing to alternatives like websex_graphql_request or websex_openapi_audit. The mention of 'introspection evidence' hints at a precondition but is not stated as one.

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