webdev_graphql_formatter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates formatting and validation, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive, nor any side effects or auth requirements. The mention of 'detailed error reporting' adds some insight.

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 concise with two sentences and a reference to describe_tool. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, but the reference could be integrated inline. Overall efficient.

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 lacks details on input format (how to supply the query) and output structure. With no output schema and an ambiguous parameter schema, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema is open with no defined parameters, yet the description refers to 'custom indentation' and implies input is a GraphQL query. This contradiction between the schema and description leaves ambiguity about how to specify indentation or pass the query, failing to add clarity.

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 formats, beautifies, and validates GraphQL queries with custom indentation. It distinguishes itself from sibling formatters like webdev_sql_formatter and webdev_xml_formatter by targeting GraphQL specifically.

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 mentions using describe_tool for full guidance, implying more detail elsewhere. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other formatters or any exclusions, but the context of GraphQL formatting is clear.

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