graph_api_get

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

The description makes the read-only nature clear via 'GET' and explains useful behavior: params are passed through as query parameters and access_token must not be included. However, with no annotations, it does not fully carry the burden of behavioral disclosure—auth assumptions, pagination, and error behavior are left 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance and token warning are packed in without bloat.

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 generic catch-all tool, this is nearly complete: edge syntax, params behavior, token handling, and selection criteria are all covered. The output schema handles return shape, and the credential-related sibling tools imply the auth setup. Minor gaps around explicit auth requirements and pagination prevent a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `params` as pass-through query parameters and gives a concrete example for `edge` ('{id}/comments'). It could add more about edge formatting or accepted query parameter values, but it conveys the essential meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 and resource: 'Generic GET against any Graph API edge.' It also explicitly positions itself as the catch-all for endpoints without a dedicated tool, which clearly separates it from the many sibling 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?

Directly says 'Use this for any endpoint not covered by a dedicated tool.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose it over siblings and when not to use it.

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