websex_graphql_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states only that the full response is returned; it says nothing about authentication handling, whether the endpoint is expected to be pre-authenticated, mutation/introspection capabilities, error propagation, redirects, or rate limiting — meaningful gaps for a raw request tool that can perform writes via GraphQL mutations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the action and result are stated immediately. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 the return values need not be described. However, for a four-parameter, zero-annotation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate: it gives no hint about how headers or variables are used, what authentication model is assumed, or how failures surface.

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% for all four parameters. The description vaguely implies a 'query' payload and a target URL but says nothing about the headers object (e.g., auth/CONTENT-TYPE expectations) or the variables object (GraphQL variable substitution), leaving half the parameters completely unexplained in both schema and prose.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Send a GraphQL query' — plus the return behavior ('full server response'), so the agent knows this is a raw GraphQL executor rather than an analyzer. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as websex_graphql_audit or the generic websex_http_request, both of which could plausibly be confused with it.

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 choose this over websex_graphql_audit (structured GraphQL security testing) or websex_http_request/curl (generic HTTP). No mention of prerequisites, authentication needs, or whether it is appropriate for one-off queries versus an audit workflow.

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