arango_graph_statistics

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is for generating analytics (likely read-only), but does not mention permissions, performance impact, or whether it modifies data. Provides basic behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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?

Single sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and specifics. No wasted words; all information is relevant.

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?

No output schema, and description does not explain return format. For a statistical tool, it lacks detail on how results are structured (e.g., per-graph vs aggregated). Adequate but incomplete given the complexity of graph analytics.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description mentions vertex/edge counts, degree distribution, and connectivity, which align with boolean parameters, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for other params like graphName and sampleSize.

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?

Description clearly states it generates comprehensive graph analytics including specific metrics (vertex/edge counts, degree distribution, connectivity). Distinguishes from siblings like arango_graph_traversal which focuses on traversal rather than analytics.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided. The description implies usage for analytics but does not specify when to choose this over other graph tools like arango_graph_traversal or arango_shortest_path.

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