overview

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 usefully discloses the return payload (counts plus an as-of freshness date), but never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor anything about tenant scoping or cost. For a read-only summary tool the risk is low, but the disclosure is incomplete.

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 tight sentences: the content list first, then the routing rule. Zero filler and the most decision-relevant information (what you get) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a decent job enumerating returned fields, and with no annotations the read-only nature is at least implied by 'size and freshness.' However, the sole parameter goes unexplained and there is no statement of side-effect profile, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool the agent is told to call first.

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?

There is one parameter, 'tenant', with a default of empty string and 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions tenant, so an agent cannot tell whether omitting it means 'all tenants', 'the caller's default tenant', or something else. With a param present and undocumented, the baseline-4 zero-param case does not apply.

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 names the resource (the graph) and enumerates exactly what the tool reports: people, active people, tracked modules, merged PRs, and the data as-of date. It reads as a metadata/summary tool and is clearly distinct from the analytical siblings (risk_scan, path_between, who_knows), though it never states a crisp verb like 'summarize'.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: 'Call first when unsure what is in the graph.' That is real when-to-use guidance and positions it as the entry-point tool. It does not name any alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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