Raw GraphQL query (API v2)

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: introspection is unnecessary because the schema is pre-documented, and the resource to consult first. It omits auth/rate-limit behavior and only hints at write mode via the schema ('query only unless writes are enabled'), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then prerequisites, then the alternative, then syntax. Every sentence earns its place and the routing information comes before the dense JSON examples. The inline filter/sort examples are heavy but functional rather than redundant.

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?

With no output schema and an open-world GraphQL surface, the description correctly redirects to external schema documentation rather than restating it, and covers the awkward parts (filters, sorts, introspection avoidance). It leaves the write-mode behaviour and error/return shape unaddressed, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 67% and the description compensates well for the sparse 'query' parameter by giving concrete filter and sort document shapes with operators (EQUALS, direction DESC), which the schema does not provide. It says nothing about 'refresh' or 'variables', but the query-shape guidance is the highest-value information for this tool.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (raw GraphQL query against the v2 API) and enumerates its scope (collections, media, advanced filters), which distinguishes it from the many curated siblings like nexus_get_mod and nexus_list_games. An agent can immediately tell this is the general-purpose escape hatch rather than a purpose-built endpoint.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For plain mod searches use nexus_find_mods' names the alternative and the condition that selects it, and 'read the nexus://graphql-cheatsheet resource first' states a prerequisite in the correct order. Use-when (advanced filters, collections, media) and use-when-not (plain mod searches) are both present.

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