nebula_get_graph_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds the useful detail that DDL output can be optionally included and is UTF-8 byte-bounded, but does not explain what happens when max_ddl_bytes is exceeded or how the DDL string appears in the output.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler or repeated schema information. It front-loads the core operation and puts the optional behavior second, though it is perhaps too sparse to fully carry the 0% schema coverage.

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 tool with two required parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the opaque 'schema' and 'graph_type' parameters and lack of sibling differentiation leave meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter documentation. It provides a hint about include_ddl and max_ddl_bytes through the 'UTF-8 byte-bounded DDL string' phrase, but the required parameters 'schema' and 'graph_type' are left completely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Read a Graph Type schema'. This clearly distinguishes it from mutation/execution siblings and signals it is a retrieval operation. However, 'Graph Type' is domain-specific and not expanded, so a less knowledgeable agent could still be unsure what object is being read.

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 over siblings like nebula_list_graphs or nebula_execute_query. The description implies a read operation but does not state prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when an alternative should be chosen.

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