get_aave_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns queryable root fields and types, implying read-only safe behavior. It lacks details on rate limits, permissions, or side effects, but for a schema introspection tool this is acceptable.

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, concise and to the point. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage context. No extraneous information.

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 low-complexity introspection tool with no output schema, the description fully informs the agent of what to expect (all queryable root fields and types) and when to use it. It is complete enough for effective 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 100% for the single parameter 'chain' with an enum and description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (chain identifier including governance). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool introspects the full GraphQL schema for any AAVE chain subgraph, specifying the action and resource. It distinctly differentiates from siblings like query_aave_subgraph by indicating it is a preparatory step.

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 clearly tells when to use the tool: before writing a custom query_aave_subgraph call or to understand available data. It implies this is for exploration, not execution, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list all alternatives.

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