nebula_select_graph

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation-like session change), idempotentHint=false (because it executes a pending query), and openWorldHint=true. The description adds critical behavioral context: it automatically executes the last read-only query blocked by a missing graph and returns its result, and warns against re-execution. It lacks details on what happens to the session state or error handling, but covers the main side effect well.

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 three concise sentences, each adding necessary information: the action, the automatic execution, and the warning. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool has one parameter (undocumented in schema) and an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description provides enough context about the side effect and the session-based operation. However, it could clarify whether the graph parameter expects a name or an identifier, which would aid completeness.

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 single parameter 'graph' is only named. The description provides no additional semantics about the format of the graph identifier (e.g., name vs. ID), which a user might need. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's lack of detail.

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 verb and resource ('Choose the user's graph using SESSION SET GRAPH in the existing database session') and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like nebula_execute_query by describing the side-effect of auto-executing a previously blocked query. An agent can immediately understand the tool's distinct purpose.

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 provides clear context: use when a query was blocked due to a missing graph. It also warns not to re-execute that query. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for setting graphs in other ways, though the session-based nature is clear.

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