inspect_capsule_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about limits, side effects, scope of the inspection, or how the graph_target is resolved.

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, front-loaded, grammatically clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for what it says, though it is thin relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, a nested graph_target object, and no annotation coverage. A one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to understand the meanings of the various limits and toggles, or to know how to construct a valid graph_target.

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 description adds meaning only for graph_target, which is already visible in the schema. With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the other parameters (limit, max_bytes, node_path, include_ports, include_connections, etc.) remain semantically unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('Capsule instance graph'), and names the key identifier ('graph_target'). It is clear enough to distinguish from scene-graph tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling inspection tools like inspect_capsule_instances.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_capsule_instances, focus_capsule_graph, or edit_capsule_graph. The intended use is only weakly implied by the word 'Inspect'.

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