invariance_run_operational_graph

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering side-effect safety. The description adds value by disclosing the return composition (entities, edges, findings, completeness score, missing_evidence) and naming the completeness dimensions, but does not go beyond that into behavioral traits like pagination, performance, or error conditions.

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, reasonably concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get the operational graph for a run') and then lists the returned components. It is not overly long, though the parenthetical list of completeness dimensions adds a bit of density without losing clarity.

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 there is no output schema, the description must convey the return structure. It lists the main components (entities, edges, findings, completeness score, missing_evidence) and names the completeness dimensions, which is adequate for an agent to understand what it will receive. However, it does not elaborate on the structure of entities/edges/findings, potential pagination, or how to interpret the missing_evidence list, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with this complexity.

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 already provides a description for run_id with an example ('run_abc123'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves the operational graph for a run, enumerating specific components (entities, edges, findings, completeness score, missing_evidence). This is a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like invariance_run_get or invariance_run_inspect, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives. With many sibling run-related tools (e.g., invariance_run_get, invariance_run_metrics, invariance_run_inspect), the description gives no conditions, exclusions, or references to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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