graphql_query

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 usefully discloses a failure mode (unknown field breaks the query) and the one-table-per-source constraint, but says nothing about read-only vs mutating behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving key behavioral traits unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the prerequisite and the constraint, in four tight sentences with no padding. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite call, the failure mode, and the table/source model well. It omits expected return shape and how it relates to the mutation sibling, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that there is no table/collection argument and that each source exposes exactly one table addressed via records(...). The hash and variables parameters are left to the schema, which explains them.

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 (ejecuta) and resource (consulta GraphQL) scoped to the ACTIVE data source, and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by naming get_schema and switch_source and by ruling out a 'tabla'/'coleccion' argument. An agent can distinguish it from graphql_mutation and graphql_batch purely from the text.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('llama primero a get_schema') plus the failure condition if skipped, and names switch_source as the way to change tables. It does not contrast with graphql_mutation or graphql_batch, so the when-not guidance is incomplete, but the core usage path is unambiguous.

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