nebula_list_graphs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the qualifier 'persistent graphs', which implies a distinction from temporary graphs. It does not mention pagination behavior (limit/offset) or the optional schema filter, but since annotations carry the main behavioral load, a baseline 3 is reasonable. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and its usage context efficiently. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete due to the lack of parameter explanations and limited behavioral detail. It does not address the optional schema filter, which is a common source of confusion. The description provides only minimal context, which is insufficient for an agent to use the tool optimally, even with annotations.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, offset, schema). With low coverage, the description must compensate, but it completely fails to explain what these parameters control. An agent would have to rely solely on the schema, which may be insufficient for understanding the schema parameter's purpose. This is a critical gap.

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 states a specific action ('List persistent graphs') on a clear resource, and adds the context of being a preliminary step ('before choosing schema and graph context'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like nebula_get_graph_schema (which retrieves schema) and nebula_execute_query (which executes queries). The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 gives a clear 'when to use' signal ('before choosing schema and graph context'), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, only implying its role as a precursor. A 4 is appropriate because it provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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