get_subgraph_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. While mentioning 'introspection' correctly signals a read-only GraphQL operation, it omits critical behavioral details such as the return format (introspection JSON vs SDL), potential authentication requirements, or caching behaviors.

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 a single, efficient sentence (9 words) that leads with the action verb, wastes no words on tautology, and immediately conveys the tool's sole purpose without unnecessary preamble or redundancy.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the input contract and primary function. However, it could briefly note the expected response format (e.g., 'returns introspection schema JSON') to fully compensate for missing output documentation.

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% with clear enum values ('simple', 'negrisk') documented in the input schema. The description aligns with the parameter name ('subgraph') but adds no additional semantic context about what distinguishes 'simple' from 'negrisk' subgraphs, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('GraphQL schema'), scope ('Limitless subgraph'), and method ('via introspection'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'query_subgraph' which retrieves data rather than schema definitions. However, it assumes familiarity with 'Limitless' as a platform identifier without explicit domain context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly failing to clarify when to call 'get_subgraph_schema' versus directly using 'query_subgraph', or that this is typically a prerequisite step for understanding available fields before querying.

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