get_pcg_graph_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the implicit graph endpoints and that they are addressable via the literal tokens "Input"/"Output", a non-obvious behavioral detail an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 tightly front-loaded sentences followed by an embedded return-shape block. Every clause earns its place and no filler is present.

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?

Although no structured output schema exists, the description inlines the full return object (nodes, pins, edges, endpoint flags), so an agent knows exactly what to expect. Combined with annotation-covered safety and full param coverage, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% for the single pcg_graph_path parameter (including both short and fully-qualified forms), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds no additional parameter guidance beyond what is there, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Reads the structure of a UPCGGraph') and enumerates exactly what is returned: node count, per-node titles/pin labels, and directed edges. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_pcg_node_properties, which covers single-node properties.

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?

Explicitly routes the output to the sibling tools that consume it: pin labels and input/output node names 'feed connect_pcg_nodes / disconnect_pcg_nodes'. This gives concrete downstream context, though it does not state when-not to use this tool versus e.g. get_pcg_node_properties.

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