graph_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the metric inventory, which is useful since there is no output schema, but says nothing about scope (whole graph vs. filtered), cost, or default resolution behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and the returned metrics front-loaded. No filler, no restatement of the name, every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description's metric list is the only signal about what comes back, which is genuinely needed. However it omits the scope of the statistics (project-wide vs. episode-scoped) and any guidance tying as_of to the reported stats, leaving a gap for a two-parameter graph tool.

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%, so both repo and as_of are fully documented in the schema, including defaults and accepted value forms. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 (Return) and resource (summary statistics) and enumerates the metrics: node count, edge count, communities, confidence breakdown. An agent can tell roughly what it produces, but the description never distinguishes it from the close sibling graph_history_stats, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as graph_history_stats or graph_episodes. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the name and the metric list.

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