origin_diagnose_graph

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

The description lacks any behavioral details such as whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies the graph, what it returns, or any side effects. With no annotations present, the description fails to provide essential transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise but too brief given the tool's complexity. While it front-loads the purpose, it sacrifices necessary information such as parameter roles and return value. It could be restructured to provide more value without losing conciseness.

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?

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and many sibling tools. It omits parameter semantics, return value, behavioral details, and usage context. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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?

There is zero overlap between the description and the parameters. The description does not mention any of the 13 parameters, leaving their roles unexplained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no value to understanding the parameters.

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's purpose: to diagnose graph readiness issues. It provides concrete examples (empty layers, missing axis titles), making the function easy to understand. The verb 'diagnose' effectively distinguishes this from other graph manipulation tools.

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 given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like origin_get_graph_info or origin_format_graph. Given the large number of sibling graph tools, this omission makes it difficult for an AI agent to choose appropriately.

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