codelogic-graph-capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the GET method, conditional returns (metadata vs missing routes), and default parameter behavior. It lacks statements on auth or side effects, but for a read-only fetch, this is adequate.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action and why, the second adds parameter detail. Every word contributes value.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and default logic. It could mention if the endpoint requires authentication or if there are rate limits, but overall it is sufficient.

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 only parameter is optional and well described in both schema and description. The description adds context about defaulting from the CODELOGIC_WORKSPACE_NAME environment variable, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 fetches graph API capabilities/manifest, specifies HTTP method (GET), and distinguishes return content based on deployment status. This sets it apart from siblings like search or impact, which focus on different operations.

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?

The description implies usage context by mentioning deployment-dependent behavior and default from workspace, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like codelogic-graph-search. No when-not guidelines provided.

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