graph_debug_token

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 adds a crucial behavioral guarantee: it inspects without 'exposing the raw token'. This goes beyond simply stating 'inspect' and conveys a safety property important for an access-token tool. It doesn't detail other behaviors like network calls or error handling, but for a simple read-only debug tool, the main concern is covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence provides distinct value (what is inspected and why it's useful). No wasted words or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the user what fields will be inspected (scopes, expiry, app, type) and the use case (debugging permission issues). For a zero-parameter, read-only introspection tool, this is complete guidance. The safety note about not exposing the token adds important context.

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 zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and the schema already fully documents this (empty properties). This is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool inspects the currently loaded access token and lists specific attributes (scopes, expiry, app, type). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ads or insights. The verb 'inspect' plus resource 'access token' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the tool is 'useful for debugging permission issues', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not mention when not to use or list alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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