qa_probe_get_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full responsibility. It only states the tool retrieves a graph but does not disclose behavioral traits like being read-only, auth requirements, or performance characteristics.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence gives the action, the second provides an example query. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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 the simple tool (one optional param, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and gives an example. A minor gap is the lack of description of the output graph format.

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 100% for the single optional parameter, and the description adds value by providing an example filter ('/dashboard'). This goes beyond the schema's description of 'Optional: filter to a specific frontend route'.

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 a dependency graph mapping backend API routes to frontend routes. The verb 'Get' and resource 'dependency graph' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like explanation or blast radius.

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 includes a concrete example question ('Which backend routes does /dashboard call?'), which implies when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives among siblings.

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