acunetix_gql

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool can execute both queries and mutations, and warns about disabled introspection. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., mutations modifying data), authentication prerequisites, and error behavior, leaving the agent to infer risks of a raw GraphQL executor.

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 effectively structured with a title, purpose statement, parameter list, and a note. It is not overly verbose, though the Chinese phrasing is slightly repetitive. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps each element useful.

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 covers purpose, parameters, and constraints (introspection disabled). However, it lacks any mention of the response format (no output schema), lifecycle context (e.g., requiring prior login), or relationship to sibling tools. For a powerful generic executor, this is a notable gap, but it is still minimally viable.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well. It explains operation_name with concrete examples (loginUser, getSharedUIData, getSystemInfo), defines query as the complete GraphQL text based on official docs, and notes variables is an optional object. This goes beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 identifies the tool as a generic GraphQL executor that sends queries and mutations to /graphql/, with a specific verb ('sends') and resource ('GraphQL'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the generic core channel for arbitrary operations, while siblings are specific actions like login or list targets.

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?

It implies usage for any confirmed GraphQL operation and notes that introspection is disabled, requiring known operation names. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this generic tool over dedicated sibling tools (e.g., using loginUser here vs acunetix_login), nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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