origin_get_graph_info

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('inspect'), which is appropriate for a non-destructive tool. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies any state), rate limits, or behavior when graph_name is null. The existence of an output schema mitigates missing return value details.

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, well-crafted sentence that front-loads the action ('Inspect') immediately followed by the object and its subcomponents. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no extraneous information. This is an ideal length for straightforward tools.

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?

Given the tool has one optional parameter and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the format or semantics of 'graph_name', and does not provide any usage context (e.g., whether it returns a summary or full details). The output schema helps for return values, but the input guidance is severely lacking.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'graph_name' parameter. The agent is left to guess whether it requires a name, ID, or path. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema definition, which is especially problematic given the lack of parameter documentation.

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 inspect a graph page and its subcomponents (layers, axes, plots). The verb 'inspect' and the listed resources make the action and scope unambiguous. This differentiates it from sibling tools like origin_get_layer_info (specific to layers) and origin_add_plot_to_graph (additive action).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a graph to exist, or when not to use it (e.g., for modifying graphs). There is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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