graphql_validate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states that the query is not executed and provides the return structure (valid, errors, depth), plus a hint about low cost. While it does not detail error semantics or auth requirements, the essential behavior is transparent for a validation tool.

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, immediately front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return format and usage guidance. No extraneous words; every sentence earns its place.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the operation, non-execution, return type, and when to use it in relation to a sibling. It does not allude to potential limitations (e.g., query size or schema dependence), but these are not critical for basic validation usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the parameter as 'a GraphQL query', giving meaning beyond the generic schema title 'Query', but it does not provide format examples, constraints, or additional details. This is moderate compensation for a single simple parameter.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('GraphQL query') while explicitly noting it does not execute the query. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like graphql_query and graphql_mutate, making the purpose 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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to catch typos and invalid fields cheaply before calling graphql_query.' It names an alternative tool and specifies the exact scenario (pre-execution validation), fulfilling the when-to-use criterion.

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