gaea_inspect_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It indicates a read-only inspection activity and specifies what is returned or examined, but it does not describe output format, side effects, or handling of invalid paths. The 'Inspect' wording strongly implies non-destructive behavior, but additional detail would strengthen transparency.

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?

One sentence, no filler, with the core action and the important inspection targets front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 simple one-parameter inspection tool, the description is largely complete: it says what is inspected and lists the categories returned. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by describing the result contents. It could mention return format or failure behavior, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 the single parameter 'graph' is already fully documented as a path relative or absolute to GAEA_ROOT. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Inspect'), names the resource ('.terrain graph'), and enumerates concrete contents (File nodes, output destinations, profiles, exposed variables). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gaea_open_graph (open) and gaea_list_graphs (list graphs).

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 given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as gaea_list_outputs or gaea_open_graph. The context is only implied by the word 'Inspect'; there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool references.

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